Painter v. Mckenzie et al

On September 16, 2025, freelance photographer Jonathan Painter was covering a protest in Portland, Oregon, when he was struck in the eye by a rubber bullet fired by Officer Daniel McKenzie. Painter, who was wearing press credentials and allegedly posed no threat, suffered permanent blindness. He filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against McKenzie and other officers, asserting excessive force and retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to record police. Video evidence broadly corroborated his account, showing he was retreating. The case ignited immediate national controversy over police treatment of journalists and the use of less-lethal munitions against peaceful observers.

In early 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claim, ruling that a reasonable jury could find the force excessive. The court granted qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim, citing a lack of clearly established law specific to press protections during protests. Trial on the remaining claims is pending.

Whether the officers' use of a rubber bullet against a credentialed journalist under the circumstances constituted excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, whether it amounted to First Amendment retaliation, and whether the individual officers were shielded by qualified immunity.

The case galvanized press freedom groups and sparked protests across the U.S., with many calling for a federal law protecting the right to record police. It also forced the Portland City Council to re-evaluate its crowd-control policies and the use of rubber bullets. The split ruling intensified the national debate on qualified immunity reform, especially in contexts involving journalists and observers at demonstrations.