Federal Court Prohibits Police Use of Non-Lethal Weapons at Protests
A federal court has made a notable ruling that prevents police from employing non-lethal weapons during protests, asserting they can be deadly. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall declared on Thursday that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) breached a long-standing court injunction by using projectile launchers against protestors who did not pose an immediate threat of severe harm.
This ruling emerged from protests in Los Angeles during the summer of 2025, which were sparked by immigration enforcement actions from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Videos captured during these events depicted LAPD using non-lethal weapons while demonstrators shot off fireworks. These protests were part of broader anti-Trump and anti-ICE sentiments.
The LAPD contends that using projectile launchers is crucial for managing quickly changing and chaotic situations, arguing that it reduces the chances of one-on-one confrontations that can endanger both officers and civilians during large protests.
Interestingly, while the demonstrators involved were not covered under the initial injunction from the Black Lives Matter protests, the court maintained their relevance in examining the LAPD’s adherence to federal law.
In a stern order from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Marshall highlighted that LAPD officers deployed 40mm rounds without appropriate warnings, targeting areas of demonstrators’ bodies that the previous injunction explicitly protected against.
She noted, “The plaintiffs provided evidence that the defendants used 40mm rounds against demonstrators posing no imminent threat of violence, failed to warn before firing, and hit restricted areas.” This statement underscores the court’s concern about officers acting outside legal protocols.
The root of this contempt ruling lies in a 2021 injunction that limited the LAPD’s use of “less-lethal” force, particularly after widespread protests following George Floyd’s death in 2020. The injunction explicitly prohibited targeting sensitive body parts and required warnings when possible, with strict limitations on deployment in the face of imminent danger.
Judge Marshall criticized the city for not fully complying with these terms, rejecting the notion that the breaches were merely technical or negligent. She accused the LAPD of civil contempt, imposing an immediate ban on their crowd control weapons.
During her review, Judge Marshall referred to various 2025 events where LAPD officers used force against both protestors and reporters. For instance, one incident involved an officer shooting a bystander filming the police, resulting in serious facial injuries. Another example included a protestor shot in the back while in a vulnerable position. The court also noted situations where medical personnel were fired upon while assisting injured individuals at protests.
The ruling permits the plaintiffs to pursue attorney fees related to the case but did not assign an LAPD officer to ensure compliance with the ruling.
This contempt ruling comes on the heels of previous judicial limitations on police conduct during similar immigration-related protests. In December, another ruling barred the LAPD from using force against journalists and peaceful protestors, although the city is currently appealing that decision.
City attorneys and federal officials have previously voiced concerns that these restrictions are overly expansive and unmanageable, particularly since it can be difficult to clearly identify journalists during active protests.
