ACLU and Press Freedom: Protecting Journalists from Censorship and Retaliation
- Sep 24
- 9 min read
Updated: Oct 8
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) plays a central role in defending journalists as press freedoms face mounting political threats. Its work spans federal lawsuits, including blocking DHS intimidation of reporters, challenging ICE’s retaliatory detention of journalist Mario Guevara, and condemning the Pentagon’s restrictive press pledge policy. The ACLU also advocates for a federal shield law, mobilizes coalitions to oppose censorship, and educates reporters on legal protections through its Freedom of the Press initiative. Combining litigation, public advocacy, and proactive education, the organization seeks to ensure that journalists across national, local, and student media can report freely without fear of government retaliation or suppression.
In an era marked by political polarization, state surveillance, and growing hostility toward the press, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has emerged as one of the last consistent forces defending journalistic freedom in the United States. In 2025 alone, the ACLU has taken on multiple high-profile cases exposing how far government institutions are willing to go to intimidate or silence reporters.
In Los Angeles, the ACLU of Southern California secured a preliminary injunction barring the Department of Homeland Security from assaulting or detaining journalists, legal observers, and protesters covering public demonstrations after repeated instances of journalists being pepper-sprayed, beaten, and unlawfully arrested. In Washington, D.C., the national ACLU filed a brief in Associated Press v. Budowich, arguing that the White House’s selective denial of access to disfavored reporters constitutes direct retaliation and a violation of the First Amendment. Most recently, the organization intervened in the case of Mario Guevara, a longtime investigative journalist detained and threatened with deportation by ICE, calling the move a blatant act of retaliation against a member of the press.
These cases mark a shift from symbolic advocacy to real-time defense. The ACLU is confronting government overreach across federal courts, legislatures, and local jurisdictions, targeting the misuse of surveillance, gag orders, and retaliatory arrests. Its ongoing work builds on years of precedent, from defending reporters arrested during the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations to challenging border surveillance of journalists covering asylum seekers.
As elected officials continue to weaponize terms like “fake news” and misinformation erodes public trust, the ACLU’s mission remains unshaken: to defend the press as a cornerstone of democracy. Its current litigation underscores the simple truth that holding power accountable is not a privilege granted by the state, but a constitutional right that must be protected at every level.
LEGAL ADVOCACY AND LITIGATION
Blocking Abusive Tactics by Federal Agencies
In September 2025, the ACLU secured a significant win in Southern California when a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security. The ruling barred DHS agents from using force, chemical agents, or intimidation against journalists, legal observers, and protesters during immigration raids. The injunction came after the ACLU submitted sworn statements from nearly 50 reporters, photographers, and videographers who described being shoved, gassed, or threatened while covering federal operations.
The court concluded that these tactics not only endangered press safety but also violated the First Amendment by deterring journalists from documenting matters of public concern. The decision reinforced the principle that government agencies cannot suppress press coverage through intimidation, even in high-security or politically charged environments. For the ACLU, the case was both a legal victory and a warning shot: federal agencies would be held accountable when they overstepped constitutional boundaries in efforts to silence or obstruct the press.
Shielding Reporters and Sources Through Media-Protection Advocacy
The ACLU has long argued that press freedom depends on journalists' ability to protect their confidential sources. While forty-nine states and the District of Columbia provide some form of shield protection, no federal statute exists to prevent prosecutors or civil litigants from forcing reporters to reveal the identities of those who come forward with sensitive information. This gap leaves journalists vulnerable to subpoenas and contempt charges, particularly when reporting on national security or government misconduct.
To close this gap, the ACLU’s Media Protection Laws initiative continues to press Congress for a comprehensive federal shield law. Such a statute would create uniform standards, ensuring that journalists can pursue investigative reporting without the looming threat of legal reprisals. In addition to legislative advocacy, the ACLU has filed amicus briefs in cases where subpoenas target journalists, arguing that without source confidentiality, whistleblowers will be silenced and critical information will never reach the public. The organization frames this issue not only as a matter of press rights but as essential to government accountability and democratic transparency.
Responding to Censorship Threats to Media and Free Speech
The ACLU consistently intervenes when government actors attempt to influence or suppress independent reporting. A notable example came when the Trump administration sought to eliminate federal funding for NPR and PBS, a move widely viewed as retaliation against outlets critical of the White House. The ACLU publicly condemned the proposal, framing it as a direct threat to editorial independence and a violation of the principle that government should not use financial leverage to punish disfavored coverage.
Beyond funding battles, the ACLU mobilizes coalitions to defend media figures and entertainers targeted for their speech. When late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended following criticism of administration policies, the ACLU helped coordinate a public letter signed by more than 400 prominent entertainers, journalists, and cultural leaders. The letter denounced the suspension as government-driven censorship and underscored the dangers of allowing political power to dictate the boundaries of artistic or journalistic expression. Through these efforts, the ACLU emphasizes that censorship, whether financial, regulatory, or reputational, remains an ongoing threat to free speech and a free press.
Protecting Student Journalists and Campus Media
The ACLU extends its press freedom work to the front lines of student journalism, where young reporters often face censorship and administrative pressure. Through its Press in Peril series, the organization documents and challenges threats to campus media, recognizing that student outlets are essential training grounds for the next generation of journalists.
One recent example featured a Columbia University student journalist who described efforts by administrators to restrict coverage and intimidate reporters during campus protests. By amplifying this account, the ACLU highlighted how schools frequently suppress unfavorable reporting under the guise of maintaining order or protecting reputation. The organization uses these stories to call for stronger protections for student journalists, reminding institutions that the First Amendment applies on campuses just as it does in broader society. In doing so, the ACLU not only defends student reporters but also reinforces the role of campus media as vital watchdogs in democratic life.
STRATEGIC ORGANIZING AND PUBLIC ADVOCACY
Media Defense as Free-Speech Campaigns
The ACLU situates its defense of journalists within its larger mission to protect free speech and democratic participation. The organization stresses that a free and independent press is inseparable from government accountability, giving citizens the information they need to scrutinize those in power. In its public statements, the ACLU frames press protection not as a niche issue for media professionals but as a cornerstone of constitutional democracy.
This broad approach includes resisting government attempts to chill expression through indirect means. The ACLU has spoken out against efforts to police language, pressure employers to punish outspoken reporters, or use regulatory threats to control content on social media platforms. In their efforts to challenge these tactics, the ACLU highlights how press freedom is undermined not only by overt censorship but also by subtler forms of retaliation that discourage dissenting voices from speaking out.
Leveraging Coalition Power
The ACLU frequently collaborates with journalism associations, free press nonprofits, labor unions, and creative communities to strengthen its advocacy. By building broad coalitions, the organization ensures that press freedom concerns carry weight not only in the courts but also in congressional hearings, regulatory proceedings, and public debate. These alliances underscore the urgency of protecting journalists, making it more difficult for policymakers to dismiss threats to the press as isolated or industry-specific issues.
One example is the ACLU’s coordination of a public letter in support of Jimmy Kimmel after his suspension, which was widely viewed as politically motivated. The letter drew signatures from more than 400 entertainers, journalists, and cultural leaders, transforming what might have been seen as a single entertainment controversy into a larger free-speech issue. Through coalition work like this, the ACLU brings diverse voices together to frame press freedom as a shared democratic value that transcends industries and political lines.
Media Literacy, Public Education, and Legal Resources
Alongside courtroom battles, the ACLU invests heavily in proactive education to strengthen press freedom at every level. Its Freedom of the Press resources provide journalists and the public with practical tools to understand their rights, recognize when those rights are being violated, and take action. These materials include guides on how reporters can document harassment or interference while on assignment, explanations of legal protections that apply in different contexts, and updates on emerging threats to the press.
The ACLU equips both professional and citizen journalists to respond effectively when confronted with censorship, intimidation, or unlawful restrictions by making this information accessible. This educational work also builds public awareness, reinforcing the idea that press freedom is not just a right for media professionals but a civic protection that benefits all communities by ensuring transparency and accountability.
Continue reading: Protecting Press Freedom: Global Organizations Defending the Right to Report.
HIGH-RISK CASES AND EMERGING THREATS
ICE Prosecution of a Journalist in Detention
Among the most pressing threats the ACLU is confronting today is the detention of Atlanta-based journalist Mario Guevara. Guevara, known for his reporting on immigration raids and the treatment of undocumented communities, was targeted after publishing coverage critical of enforcement practices. Although all criminal charges against him were dismissed, Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to hold him in custody.
The ACLU has taken up his case, filing petitions in federal court that argue his detention is retaliatory and unconstitutional. Attorneys contend that ICE is punishing Guevara for exercising his First Amendment right to report on government actions, while also violating his Fifth Amendment due process protections. The case underscores the precarious position of journalists who investigate immigration and law enforcement issues, where retaliation through detention or deportation becomes a tool to silence critical voices. For the ACLU, defending Guevara is not only about securing one reporter’s release, but also about sending a broader message that government agencies cannot use immigration laws as a means to intimidate the press.
Responding to Pentagon Press Restrictions
In 2025, the Department of Defense implemented new rules that required journalists to sign a pledge agreeing not to publish unauthorized information, even when the material was unclassified, in order to maintain access to Pentagon facilities. This policy immediately drew criticism from press freedom advocates, who argued it created a chilling effect on reporting and handed the government excessive control over what could be covered.
The ACLU quickly condemned the measure as an unconstitutional prior restraint, warning that it set a dangerous precedent by conditioning press access on government approval of content. By framing the pledge as a requirement for continued access, the Pentagon blurred the line between security protocols and censorship. The ACLU has called for the policy’s withdrawal, emphasizing that restrictions of this kind undermine the First Amendment and threaten the ability of journalists to report independently on military and defense matters that directly affect public accountability.
Tracking Police and Official Misconduct Against the Media
The ACLU closely monitors cases where journalists encounter harassment or obstruction by law enforcement, particularly in the context of protests, demonstrations, and other high-tension events. Reporters, photographers, and legal observers have repeatedly been shoved, detained, or assaulted while documenting public activity, despite clear constitutional protections for newsgathering.
When these incidents occur, the ACLU responds with litigation and advocacy, pressing courts to hold officials accountable for misconduct. The recent Southern California injunction against the Department of Homeland Security, which barred agents from using force or intimidation against members of the press during immigration raids, stands as one example of this approach. In their repeated efforts to challenge these abuses, the ACLU works to ensure that police and federal officers cannot weaponize their authority to silence coverage of events that demand public scrutiny.
CHALLENGES AND WHAT COMES NEXT
Even with its aggressive advocacy, the ACLU faces significant obstacles. Efforts to pass a comprehensive federal shield law have repeatedly stalled in Congress, leaving journalists without uniform national protections for their sources. Courts, too, have been hesitant to extend First Amendment safeguards to new forms of digital media, where government influence often takes subtler forms. Meanwhile, the expansion of surveillance technology, threats of deplatforming, and pressure on private platforms by public officials create untested legal questions about how far constitutional protections should extend.
Looking ahead, the ACLU is expected to focus on cases that probe these unresolved issues, particularly where government actors attempt to influence or coerce online platforms, restrict reporting under the guise of security, or retaliate against journalists through immigration and criminal enforcement. At the same time, the organization is investing in media law infrastructure, strengthening defense networks, expanding legal training, and mobilizing coalitions so that reporters from local, minority, and alternative outlets have the resources to resist suppression. In a rapidly evolving political climate, the ACLU’s work will remain pivotal in defining the boundaries of press freedom for the digital era.
But what do you do when the country you live in no longer abides by laws? That's the big question most of us have.