The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday lifted a stay issued in August, reinstating the district court injunction barring federal agents from targeting journalists and legal observers at protests.

The injunction sets out that press passes, standing to the side of protests and carrying professional-grade photographic equipment should be used to distinguish between protesters and journalists. Additionally, the injunction requires federal agents’ uniforms to bear identifying marks.

Journalists, a newspaper and legal observers filed this class action complaint against the City of Portland in June. The plaintiffs allege that the response to the Portland protests violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights when they were shot with less-lethal munitions, pepper-sprayed, shoved and otherwise prevented from reporting on and observing the protests.

In July the Department of Homeland Security and US Marshals Service were added to the complaint. It is alleged that they used physical force and intimidation to prevent reporting on the protests.

The court ruled that the defendants did not show a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, so they are not entitled to the stay.

Multiple instances of Federal Agents targeting the press were noted in this decision. Various journalists wearing press passes, hats and shirts marked “PRESS,” and carrying professional-grade cameras were targeted. They were “pepper sprayed at point blank range,” shot in the chest with less-lethal munitions from 30 feet away, shot with less-lethal munitions near the groin and again in the back as the journalist was running away, and shoved while photographing an arrest.

An expert witness stated that the tactics used were inappropriate and retaliatory in nature. He also stated that the journalists’ injuries were virtually all caused by improper use of force.

The court noted that the federal agents are still free to issue lawful dispersal orders and that their authority to protect federal property is unquestioned.

The dissenting judge characterized the protests as “riots and destructive mob violence, resulting, inevitably, in crowd dispersal actions by law enforcement.”