A federal judge in Oregon ordered the fence around Eugene’s federal building removed within 48 hours, finding that it blocked access to a plaza long used for protests, vigils, and public assembly. That may be a win for the plaintiffs, but it leaves one obvious question hanging over the case: What happens to the people who have to work inside the building?
U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai issued the bench ruling Monday in a case brought by local activists challenging the federal government’s decision to fence off the upper courtyard after a January riot at the building. The building houses several federal offices, including ICE, the IRS, the Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The ruling gives the government two days to take down the perimeter fence, though Kasubhai said officials could later install a narrower security setup that does not shut the public out of the upper courtyard.
Fun Media Talk on the 'No Kings' Crowd Numbers As Springsteen, Jane Fonda Come Out in Minnesota
The fence went up in April after Eugene police declared a riot during a Jan. 30 protest. This was not exactly a peaceful courtyard dispute. The FBI later said it was seeking information in an “ongoing investigation into the breach and damage caused by rioters” at the federal building that day.
Federal officials cited broken windows, a breached lobby, evacuated employees, and a building closure. The government said the $269,225 fence was a reasonable response and argued that the lower plaza remained available for demonstrations.
The court may be right about the First Amendment issues, but the security concerns did not disappear because the judge said so. The people working inside that building, including ICE employees, already lived through one riot that ended with broken windows, a breached lobby, and an evacuation. Now, with the fence coming down before any replacement is ready, they are being asked to trust the same security setup that failed in January. What could possibly go wrong?
Kasubhai disagreed.
“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,” Kasubhai said from the bench. “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.”
The judge said the government has a legitimate interest in protecting federal employees and property, but described the courtyard as a traditional public forum. He also rejected a permit-only proposal for upper-plaza demonstrations, finding that a 72-hour approval process would not accommodate spontaneous protests.
Federal officials said the fence was tied to security concerns dating back to September 2025. They also said repairs were planned for broken doors and windows, along with work to harden the building’s facade with riot-proof glass. But when government lawyers could not say when the fence could be reconfigured, Kasubhai ordered it removed within 48 hours.
The judge suggested placing protective fencing along the building’s breezeways instead. Justice Department lawyer Jason Blum said he did not have a timeline for how quickly that could happen, which is not exactly reassuring for anyone reporting to work there.
Kasubhai denied the government’s request to put the ruling on hold while it considers next steps. Any appeal would go to the Ninth Circuit.
The plaintiffs argued that the upper courtyard has been used for public protest since the 1970s and is known locally as Free Speech Plaza. Their attorney cited archived General Services Administration language describing the plaza as a “community focal point” for demonstrations during the Vietnam War era and beyond.
For now, the federal government has been told to take the fence down first and work out a narrower security plan later. That may satisfy the court, but it leaves federal workers and ICE employees exposed in the meantime. As Kasubhai put it from the bench, “I’m not going to let the First Amendment cool its jets while contracts are being negotiated.”
Editor's Note: The Democrat Party has never been less popular as voters reject its globalist agenda.
Help us continue exposing Democrats' plans to lead America down a dangerous path. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member