Judge Ann Aiken Blocks DHS Noise Ban at Eugene Federal Building

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken on Feb. 20, 2026 converted a temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction that prevents the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement from enforcing a regulation that bans “loud or unusual noise” on and immediately around the sidewalks that serve as traditional free-speech areas outside the downtown Eugene Federal Building.

The injunction follows a December 2025 lawsuit by local activists Chloe Longworth and Anna Lardner alleging First Amendment violations after enforcement actions at protests outside the building, which houses DHS and ICE. Chloe Longworth was detained, arrested and cited on Nov. 18 under the noise regulation after using a megaphone, with a citation listing “prohibited conduct - unusual noise” and alleging she had “stated her opinions regarding the lack of moral character exhibited by ICE agents.” Anna Lardner was threatened with citation while reading Timothy Snyder’s book On Tyranny and using a megaphone during demonstrations.

The regulations at issue were issued by DHS in November and criminalize conduct described as “loud or unusual noise,” “noxious odor,” and “other nuisance,” while also granting DHS authority to police areas adjacent to federal property “to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.” Enforcement actions under the new rules have targeted tactics including bullhorns, megaphones and use of odor-emitting devices on sidewalks and at the Eugene Free Speech Plaza, prompting the legal challenge by the Civil Liberties Defense Center and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield’s involvement in the litigation.

In her written findings, Judge Aiken said the plaintiffs had “raised serious questions going to the merits of their First Amendment claims concerning the vagueness and overbreadth of the Unusual Noise Provision as applied to a traditional public forum.” Aiken added, “Whether or not they in fact were targeted, the danger of discriminatory application exists.” Plaintiff counsel Marianne Dugan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center argued the megaphone was a “tool of political speech. They were not just standing outside making noise.” A CLDC press release filed with the complaint said, “Plaintiffs and others have and will continue to suffer irreparable harm from the chilling violations of their constitutional rights, and it is in the public interest to restrain the actions of the federal government in this way.” Defense attorneys countered in court that the complaint involved harassment of federal employees and argued, “Banning loud noises generally without regard to their content is simply not a First Amendment violation. In any event, the First Amendment does not protect intimidating and harassing janitors, megaphone or no megaphone.”

The injunction applies locally to the sidewalks surrounding the Eugene Federal Building and, in its text, includes a temporary bar on enforcement while federal agents stand on adjacent sidewalks; the order contains a 14-day prohibition on enforcement of the loud or unusual noise, noxious odor and related nuisance prohibitions while agents are on those sidewalks. The case will move into discovery and the merits stage in federal court; if the plaintiffs prevail the preliminary injunction could become permanent and its effect could extend beyond Eugene.

The ruling joins other federal actions in the region challenging use-of-force and crowd-control measures; a separate order by U.S. District Judge Michael Simon barred use of tear gas and pepper balls at the Portland Macadam ICE facility. The Eugene litigation places federal regulation of conduct on sidewalks into the center of a constitutional test that will determine how DHS and ICE may police protests outside federal buildings.