Reach Community Development v. United States Department of Homeland Security

── Reach Community Development v. United States Department of Homeland Security ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; No. 26-1575 WHITFIELD TAYLOR, individually and as D.C. No. Parent and Next Friend of Minor Children 3:25-cv-02257-AB A.T. and B.T; MINDY KING; SUSAN District of Oregon, DOOLEY; JANICE LINEBERGER; JANE Portland DOE; REBECCA ROE; REACH B49 PARTNERS, LP; REACH OFFICE, LLC; ORDER DIANE MORENO; ERICA DEL NIGRO, individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Minor Child J.D.; ROY BROOKS, Plaintiffs - Appellees, SHAE ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of ICE; UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; RODNEY S. SCOTT, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of CBP; FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE; FARON PARAMORE, in his official capacity as the Director of FPS; UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; SEAN M. CURRAN, in his official capacity as Director of the Secret Service, Defendants - Appellants. Before: Kenneth K. Lee, Ana de Alba, and Eric C. Tung, Circuit Judges. TUNG, Circuit Judge: The federal government has asked us to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal in this case. The district court preliminarily enjoined federal law enforcement officers from using non-lethal crowd-control devices (such as tear gas) to disperse demonstrators gathered outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, Oregon. The plaintiffs who secured this preliminary injunction are not the demonstrators themselves; rather, they are several residents of a neighboring apartment complex (called Gray’s Landing) and the corporation and its subsidiaries that collectively own and operate the complex. In granting the preliminary injunction, the district court held that the plaintiffs had a constitutional substantive-due-process right to “bodily integrity” to be free of exposure to chemicals that were released when federal law enforcement officers used tear gas and other non-lethal devices to disperse the crowds. We hold that there is no such right. Neither the district court nor the plaintiffs have provided any indication that the substantive-due-process right they claim is to be found in our constitutional text or structure or is deeply rooted in our nation’s 2 26-1575 history and tradition. Because the federal government has thus made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits and has met the remaining stay factors, we grant the stay pending appeal. We also stay the district court proceedings pending appeal. Discovery on a meritless claim would serve no other purpose than to cause parties and the court to expend resources unnecessarily. I. Since last summer, demonstrators have repeatedly gathered in front of the ICE facility in Portland, Oregon to protest ICE’s efforts in enforcing this country’s immigration laws. These demonstrations have varied in size—reaching in the hundreds or thousands on some days. Opinion & Order 13, 21 (Mar. 6, 2026). According to law enforcement incident reports submitted to us (and as acknowledged by the district court), several of these demonstrations have resulted in lawbreaking—including trespass, destruction of federal property, resisting law en