This case is about preserving the fundamental First Amendment right to photograph and monitor publicly visible law enforcement activity and challenging CBP’s abusive behavior towards those who seek to exercise this right at or near ports of entry.
Ray Askins is a U.S. citizen and environmental activist. While standing on a public street in Calexico (inside the United States), he took photographs of the exterior of the Calexico Port of Entry building to illustrate a presentation he planned to give on vehicle emissions at ports of entry. Christian Ramirez is a U.S. citizen and human rights activist who, while standing on the U.S. side of the border, photographed male CBP officers improperly frisking female travelers at the San Ysidro Port of Entry.


When they took their photographs, both Mr. Askins and Mr. Ramirez were on the United States side of the border, in areas open to the public. The matters they photographed were publicly visible. In both cases, CBP officers detained, harassed, and threatened them, temporarily confiscated their cameras, and deleted their photographs without permission. CBP officers also physically abused Mr. Askins.
In response, Mr. Askins and Mr. Ramirez filed this lawsuit asserting that the CBP officers’ conduct violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights and seeking to prevent CBP from interfering with or otherwise suppressing the public’s lawful recording of federal public activities.


In September 2013, the district court denied in part and granted in part the government’s motion to dismiss. The government then filed a motion for clarification of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. In April 2014, the district court granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion. In this order, the district court reaffirmed its First Amendment analysis in its September 2013 order on the government’s motion to dismiss. The court, however, ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs relating to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims. The parties filed supplemental briefs in late spring 2014.


In January 2015, the district court issued another order granting the government’s motion in part. This order addressed Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, and invited Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.


Plaintiffs did so; once more, the government moved to dismiss, and Plaintiffs opposed.


In March 2016, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit; they filed their opening brief on September 26, 2016. The CATO Institute and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed amicus briefs in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. Appellate briefing was completed in February 2017. In February 2018, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on Plaintiff’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal of the first amended complaint.


On August 14, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion and reversed the district court’s ruling, ordering the case to be remanded for discovery. The government filed an answer on March 8, 2019, and the parties spent several months in active discovery. In October 2019, the parties began settlement discussions. In September 2020, the parties entered into a final settlement agreement and the case was dismissed. In accordance with the settlement, Defendants cannot prevent, impede, or otherwise interfere with the First Amendment rights of members of the public to make and retain photographs, video recordings, or other recordings of matters or events from a publicly accessible area at any land port of entry in the United States.


For more information, including key court filings, please visit: https://holdcbpaccountable.org/2013/12/11/askins-and-ramirez-v-departmen...

 

Attorney(s)

Mitra Ebadolahi & Emily Child, ACLUF SDIC; Arthur Luk, Samuel Callahan & Sara Murphy D’Amico, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Date filed

October 24, 2012

Court

Southern District of California

Judge

Allison H. Goddard

Status

Closed

Case number

3:12-cv-2600-AHG