FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
\nDecember 10, 2025
\nContact: Lauren Regan, Marianne Dugan, CLDC
\n(541) 687-9180
\ninfo@cldc.org<\/p>\n
Federal Court Grants Motion for Temporary Restraining Order <\/strong>Against Trump, Noem, and DHS, to Stop Threats and Enforcement of <\/strong>Unconstitutional Federal Regulations Against Protestors<\/strong><\/p>\n Eugene, Oregon<\/strong> \u2014 On December 10, 2025, Oregon federal district court Judge Aiken granted a 14-day temporary restraining order against a new regulation recently issued by the Trump administration, that was rushed into force, with an accelerated effective date of November 5, 2025.<\/p>\n The Court issued \u201can injunction ORDERING Defendants to refrain from enforcing the \u201cloud or unusual noise\u201d provision of 6 CFR \u00a7 139.35(c) on the sidewalks surrounding the federal building located between 6th and 7th Avenues and Pearl and High Streets in Eugene, Oregon. This injunction shall continue in force and effect for fourteen (14) days from the date and time of this Order.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge held that this area is a \u201ctraditional public forum,\u201d where the government\u2019s ability to regulate speech is very narrow, under the First Amendment. As the Court noted:<\/p>\n The Supreme Court has held that \u201c\u2018public places\u2019 historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered . . . to be \u2018public forums.\u2019 . . . Traditional public forum property occupies a special position in terms of First Amendment protection and will not lose its historically recognized character for the reason that it abuts government property that has been dedicated to a use other than as a forum for public expression. Nor may the government transform the character of the property by the expedient of including it within the statutory definition of what might be considered a non-public forum parcel of property.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The judge also stated:<\/p>\n Plaintiffs have presented evidence of government action which has criminalized constitutionally protected speech, or at the very least, chilled such speech due to vagueness and overbreadth . . . \u201c[T]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.\u201d Klein v. City of San Clemente<\/em>, 584 F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In addition:<\/p>\n [N]ot only have Plaintiffs been arrested or threatened with arrest for using a megaphone in a traditional public forum, but Longworth was threatened with arrest for \u201cyelling.\u201d This speaks to another reason for the impermissibility of vague or overbroad enactments: those enactments create the \u201cdanger[] of arbitrary and discriminatory application.\u201d . . . <\/em>Plaintiffs are regular protestors who believe they were targeted by government agents for their speech. Whether or not they in fact were targeted, the danger of discriminatory application exists.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The judge found that 1) the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims (including the argument that the new regulation is unconstitutionally vague, tending to chill First Amendment speech); 2) the implementation of the new regulation is causing irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs and others; and 3) the equities and public interest support an injunction.<\/p>\n