MEDIA ADVISORY
January 30, 2026
Eugene, OR

Contact:
Lauren Regan, Director and Senior Staff Attorney ​​​​​​
Civil Liberties Defense Center
info@cldc.org

FEDERAL COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF ANTI-RACIST ACTIVISTS;
HOLDS POLICE TO ACCOUNT FOR NUMEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

On January 23, 2026, Oregon Federal District Court Judge Ann Aiken issued a scorching lengthy Opinion and Order that holds the City of Springfield and Springfield Police to account for a racist attack on the people’s right to assemble and protest in the streets during a Black Unity march on July 29, 2020. In the opinion, the court denies the defendants’ arguments, and rules in favor of plaintiffs Black Unity and individual activists who were injured and harmed at the march, which took place in the Thurston neighborhood of Springfield, Oregon.

On that day, Springfield police decided to take their anger out on a group of community members that were standing up for Black people and minorities who were exercising their First Amendment rights to protect the people. Police colluded with racist violent extremists to injure and intimidate citizens from engaging in constitutionally protected marches and rallies, as well as illegally targeting and spying on political organizers.

Black Unity member S.H. recalls, “That was a night I will never forget. These weren’t vicious protestors, they were mothers, teenagers, fathers, veterans, and first responders.”

The Court overwhelmingly ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing all of their claims to move forward to trial. The claims against the City of Springfield address its total failure to prevent systemic unconstitutional behavior, as well as failure to adequately train and supervise police to act lawfully (“Monell” liability).

The following is a brief description of the plaintiffs’ claims that will proceed to trial:

• Springfield violated plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by imposing prior restraints on their right to protest – by blockading the path of the march; declaring the march an unlawful assembly; and diverting protestors into a gauntlet of violent racist far-right extremists. All of these actions were illegal and intended to chill anti-racist activists’ rights to protest and free speech.
• Springfield police repeatedly used excessive force against several activists, including making closed-fist punches to the head, and shoving videographers against whom no force was appropriate.
• Springfield and its employees violated Oregon’s anti-surveillance statute by running plaintiffs’ license plates, using undercover agents to monitor lawful political activity, and creating a database on local activists, all in violation of their federal due process rights.
• Springfield police retaliated against Black Unity and anti-racist activists for exercising their First Amendment rights.
• Springfield engaged in a race-based conspiracy to deprive Black Unity and anti-racist activists of their civil rights, in violation of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) Act.

In addition, the Court also denied qualified immunity on all police claims — a problematic court-created doctrine police use to try to escape responsibility for violating constitutional rights by claiming a reasonable officer wouldn’t know their actions were illegal.

The Court’s Order upholds the right to protest and march – and offers important guidance, given the villainous treachery of DHS and ICE agents repressing current protests.

Relying on decades of prior court rulings, Judge Aiken wrote:

REGARDING RESTRAINTS ON PROTEST —

“On this record, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that Defendants’ actions would chill a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in future street marches in Springfield.”

“The government’s ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct in a public forum is very limited. . . .This is especially true where the government seeks to restrain speech in advance of expression.” The court went on to find that a reasonable jury could find that the defendants’ actions were unconstitutional, because they favored counterprotester speech over the plaintiffs’ speech; was not “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest;” and did not “leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”

“It is clearly established that First Amendment protections ‘are nowhere stronger’ than in streets and parks because they are traditional public fora. . . . Further, ‘[p]olitical speech is core First Amendment speech, critical to the functioning of our democratic system.’ And ‘the practice of persons sharing common views banding together to achieve a common end is deeply embedded in the American political process.’”

“Prior restraints on street marches are especially disfavored. . . . The law is particularly vigilant about government officials’ discretion to impose unguided (standardless) restrictions on street marches.”

REGARDING EXCESSIVE FORCE —

“During his deposition, when [Springfield police] Chief Lewis was asked if he was ‘ever concerned that officers were using punches and strikes instead of other techniques,’ he answered, ‘[N]o.’ But he also testified that he knew that several officers had filed workers’ compensation claims for hand injuries caused by delivering focused blows. Officer Durrant testified that he couldn’t remember any policy or training on the use of focused blows. But he believed that SPD policy was that focused blows could be used in any circumstance and delivered to anywhere on the body, including the neck, and that an officer could use an open hand or closed fist. Other officers testified to the same.”

“Because the use of focused blows is a significant level of force, it is foreseeable that without adequate policy and training, its imprudent use would result in the deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights.”

“[T]he Court concludes that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the City lacked appropriate de-escalation and use-of-force policies and trainings; whether Chief Lewis ratified the use of focused blows and other force at the July 2020 march; whether the policy and training deficiencies or Chief Lewis’s ratification constituted the moving force behind the alleged constitutional injuries; and whether the policy and training deficiencies or Chief Lewis’s failure to initiate corrective action constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”

REGARDING UNLAWFUL SURVEILLANCE —

“Plaintiffs provide evidence that SPD had a custom or practice of collecting and maintaining data violative of ORS 181A.250 that was of sufficient duration, frequency, and consistency to support municipal liability. To collect and maintain such data required the input of a wide range of SPD employees over a sustained period of time. The participants ranged from officers — who collected license plate data from vehicles in attendance at Black Unity marches — to dispatchers, who entered that data with notes about the associated activities and shared that data with other officers — to undercover officers, who attended Black Unity marches and other Black Unity events and texted photos and videos to dispatch — to co-workers who helped access social media accounts and livestreams, which were downloaded after the marches — to Chief Lewis, who was aware of the conduct and who was aware of ORS 181A.250 but failed to stop the conduct.”

Plaintiff Black Unity issued this statement in response to the Court’s Order:

“As Dr. King stated, a threat to justice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere. The people need to stand up to systems of oppression and that includes federal agents, cops, military, and government officials. Being on the right side of history means using your voice and standing your ground against the mistreatments of humans and to fight for our rights no matter what your job is. That is what democracy looks like.”

“We live in a world where there is little accountability for crooked cops and government officials who often pose the biggest threat to the American people. The good fight can be long and tiresome but it is well worth it in the end because change is made, accountability is imposed, and the people are protected.”

Black Unity and the individual plaintiffs are represented by Civil Liberties Defense Center, with CLDC attorneys Lauren Regan and Marianne Dugan as counsel.

###