Fence around Eugene Federal Building must be removed within 48 hours, judge rules

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Oregonian

Updated: Jun. 23, 2026, 7:58 a.m.|Published: Jun. 22, 2026, 1:17 p.m.


A federal judge on Monday ruled that a tall metal fence around the perimeter of the Eugene Federal Building violates the public’s right to free speech and assembly by blocking access to an upper courtyard that has for decades served as a focal point for local protests. “There is a long tradition and history of using the upper space for both quiet vigils and also to express thoughts and opinions to the government agencies that are housed there,” U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai ruled from the bench.

The judge said he understands the vital need to protect the downtown building’s employees and property from riots. But he said: “I’m not convinced that the placement of the fencing here is really designed for the purposes of improvement of the building, but really to eliminate the use of the space by the public when exercising their First Amendment rights.”

At first, Kasubhai said he wouldn’t order removal of the fencing but said the government must reconfigure it in a way that allows the public to use the upper courtyard while still safeguarding the building and its workers. But by the end of Monday, when the government couldn’t provide a time frame for meeting the judge’s wishes, Kasubhai ordered the government to remove the fence within 48 hours.

He said the government still could place a much less restrictive fence that hugs the breezeway of the building on its own timeline without blocking public access to the upper courtyard. He also rejected a government proposal to allow demonstrations in the upper plaza only with a permit.

Read more: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/06/fence-around-eugene-federal-building-violates-free-speech-rights-judge-says.html

---

Link to Civil Liberties Defense Center PRESS RELEASE - Civil Liberties Defense Center Announces Resounding Win in Federal Free Speech Plaza Lawsuit

[Bluetus]

1. When is a judge going to order the Kennedy tarp removed?

What a little crybaby trump is.

[riversedge]

10. A law suit has been filed by a Democrat Rep. against Trump for the Pool tarp but it only asks for

the Trump Admin to state reasons WHY the tarp is in place.

[Bluetus]

11. That's weak. We should be suing to get the court to appoint a new board

because this one is not acting in the public interest.

[OutNow]

2. Good work by Civil Liberties Defense Center

The CLDC is a firm based here in Eugene where I live. I'm a financial supporter. While the CLDC fights for justice in cases all over the country, I know they're always ready to help us in local cases too.

[Walleye]

3. Trump hates Americans, and he hates our constitution

I really am wondering if he’s actually American. Make him prove his citizenship, like he wants everybody else to have to do.

[TheRickles]

4. Remove it within 48 hours, or else what?

That seems to be a favored R tactic now, to simply ignore judicial orders. And it's hard to see what can directly counter that. One indirect approach would be to have the appropriate State Bar Associations initiate action against the lawyers involved (censure, disbarment, etc.), but that takes a lot of time.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. There have been financial sanctions levied on DHS/DOJ lawyers

I have posted a few in LBN but can't get them all as many have been done associated with thousands of smaller (mostly immigration) cases that are not picked up by national news but are reported on local news outlets.

[TheRickles]

6. I didn't know that - thanks. Have any of the lawyers actually paid up, or do they let those sanctions drag on as well?

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Here is one

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143618435

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino ordered the attorney, Matthew Isihara, to pay $500 each day until the petitioner's identification documents are returned to him. Isihara is a military attorney currently detailed to assist the Justice Department as a special U.S. attorney, according to his LinkedIn profile.

In this case, compliance happened the next day - https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lessons-from-the-minnesota-s-civil-contempt-case so the fine was canceled.

Another - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143621795

"Accordingly, I find that Respondents' conduct constitutes civil contempt, and Respondents (as defined herein) are jointly and severally liable for compensatory civil contempt sanctions for airfare costs Fernando incurred because of the violation," the order goes on.

In a footnote of his own, Tostrud muses that the DOJ may choose to identify who, exactly, should incur the sanction — should it so desire.

Haven't been able to find a follow up as this was a small case that made the national news but however long it takes in the federal bureaucracy, the reimbursement probably did happen.

The biggest case is still going with Judge Boasberg - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143615453

The appellate court panels have been all over the map but finally agreed to go en banc this past Monday - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143682975

[TheRickles]

8. Thanks for tracking this down. The fines here look like fairly trivial amounts, though.

And some cases, like Boasberg's, are taking years to work their way through the system. Not exactly a strong deterrent, unfortunately.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. For the most part

Judges have been trained to follow an escalation process to compel compliance to orders and won't dole out the harsh penalties at the outset. Nine times out of ten, the issue is resolved with verbal and/or written warnings. But there is always that one case where arrogance rules and the escalation towards contempt, sanctions, and penalties becomes the next course of action.

[Bluetus]

12. The judge should threaten to replace the board

That would be appealed, but that puts the SCOTUS in a really interesting position. The evil 6 want to support Trump. OTOH, they are all about expnding the power of courts, and especially the SCOTUS. Would the evil 6 say that a judge does NOT have the power to replace a board that is not fulfilling its duty under the law?