Judge Bans LAPD Non-Lethal Crowd-Control Weapons Following Anti-ICE Protesting [WATCH]

A federal judge has ordered the Los Angeles Police Department to immediately stop using certain non-lethal projectile weapons for crowd control, ruling that officers violated a long-standing court injunction during protests tied to immigration enforcement actions in 2025.

U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall issued the ruling Thursday, finding that the LAPD improperly deployed 40mm and 37mm projectile launchers against demonstrators who did not pose an immediate threat of physical harm.

The decision came from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and holds the city of Los Angeles in civil contempt.

The ruling stems from protests that took place in Los Angeles during the summer of 2025 following immigration enforcement raids carried out by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Those demonstrations included anti-Trump and anti-ICE protests in June 2025, some of which escalated into confrontations between police and protesters.

Video obtained by The Post showed LAPD officers using the projectile launchers while being targeted by protesters who were firing fireworks.

Despite that context, the court found that officers failed to comply with existing legal restrictions governing the use of the weapons.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

The launchers fire foam, rubber, or plastic rounds and are classified by the department as “less-lethal” tools.

Police officials have argued that the weapons are necessary in fast-moving and unpredictable situations, stating that their use can prevent more dangerous one-on-one confrontations that increase risks to officers, protesters, and bystanders during large-scale unrest.

Judge Marshall rejected those arguments in her order, finding that the LAPD failed to follow required safeguards.

The injunction at the center of the case dates back to May 2021, when the court imposed strict limits on LAPD’s use of less-lethal weapons following widespread protests in Los Angeles in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd.

That 2021 injunction barred officers from targeting sensitive areas of the body, required warnings before deploying the weapons when feasible, and limited their use to situations involving an immediate threat of violence.

While the 2025 demonstrators were not part of the original Black Lives Matter-related case, the court said the incidents were relevant in determining whether the city was complying with existing federal law.

In a sharply worded order, Judge Marshall found that officers fired 40mm munitions without providing required warnings and struck individuals in areas of the body explicitly prohibited under the earlier injunction.

“Here, Plaintiffs provide evidence that Defendants used 40mm munitions on protestors who did not pose an immediate threat of violence of physical harm, did not provide warnings before using the munitions, and hit protestors in restricted areas of the body,” Marshall wrote.

The court cited multiple incidents from 2025 involving protesters and members of the press.

In one case, an LAPD officer shot a man who was filming police activity, causing facial injuries that required surgery.

Another incident involved a woman who was shot while crouched behind a chair, struck while on the ground, and then shot again in the back.

After that incident, the court said an attorney who asked an officer for identification was himself shot twice in the groin.

Judge Marshall also cited an event in which a man was struck in the back of the head as he attempted to leave a protest.

Another incident involved officers firing at a registered nurse who was treating injured demonstrators and wearing a visible medical symbol.

Based on those findings, the court concluded that the city failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with the 2021 injunction and rejected arguments that the violations were technical or inadvertent.

Marshall ordered an immediate ban on LAPD’s use of the 40mm and 37mm launchers for crowd control purposes.

The court also granted plaintiffs permission to seek attorneys’ fees related to the litigation.

However, the judge declined to appoint an independent official to oversee LAPD compliance with the ruling.

The contempt finding follows earlier judicial action tied to the same wave of immigration-related protests.

In December, U.S. District Judge Hernan D. Vera barred LAPD officers from using the weapons against journalists and nonviolent protesters.

The city appealed that ruling.

That appeal is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals and challenges the scope of the restrictions arising from the same protest activity cited in Judge Marshall’s decision.

City attorneys and federal officials have argued that the restrictions are overly broad and impractical, contending that journalists are not always immediately identifiable during active demonstrations.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.