Вход на сайт

Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Tincher v. Mullin

Дата публикации: 15-04-2026 17:36:55

RCFP supports a lawsuit that seeks to bar federal agents in Minnesota from using excessive force against journalists.
The post Tincher v. Mullin appeared first on The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.


Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Date Filed: April 13, 2026

Background: In December 2025, a group of community members in Minnesota filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the federal government violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by using arrest and indiscriminate force against protesters and observers of federal immigration enforcement operations in the state.

The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction barring federal agents from engaging in such unconstitutional conduct, including the improper use of chemical irritants, rubber bullets, and other crowd-control tactics. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota largely granted the preliminary injunction. After the government announced the conclusion of “Operation Metro Surge” in February, the preliminary injunction was dissolved, and the government filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. The plaintiffs opposed. 

Our Position: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a friend-of-the-court brief joined by 23 news and media organizations urging the district court to deny the government’s motion and allow the lawsuit to proceed. 

  • The First Amendment protects the right to observe and report the news.
  • Reporting on protest activity and police response can be dangerous, and the excessive or indiscriminate use of force against journalists can chill news reporting on matters of public concern.

From the brief: “When the government unleashes crowd-control tactics and tools indiscriminately on persons observing police conduct in public spaces, who are not participating in any violent unrest, such steps can have an extraordinary chilling effect on constitutionally protected newsgathering and, consequently, on the public’s access to reporting on matters of public concern.”

Схожие новости

#Наименование новостиТональностьИнформативностьДата публикации
1Tomasi v. City of Los Angeles0509-06-2026
2Centre Daily Times v. Kleppinger0528-05-2026
3Journalist’s lawsuit prompts FAA to abandon no fly zone near DHS vehicles5717-04-2026
4Penn State University ‘gag’ policy violates First Amendment, newsrooms argue in lawsuit0528-05-2026
5Donnelly v. Des Moines Register0228-04-2026
6Journalist’s lawsuit alleges LAPD officer targeted, attacked her at anti-ICE protest0709-06-2026
7More States Weigh in on Nexstar-Tegna0329-06-2026
8СМИ: спецпрокурор США пожаловался ФБР на попытки его дискредитировать0030-10-2018
9МВД не выявило фактов воспрепятствования работе журналистов на акциях в Москве0005-09-2019

Классификация: Общество. Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 9. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 5. Источник: www.rcfp.org.