Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Court Rules Against Journalists in Lawsuit Against Police Officers for Injuries Sustained at a Protest

By Julie Tappendorf on August 3, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In Schukar, et al. v. Kenosha County, et al., the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld a district court’s decision in favor of
police officers in a First and Fourth Amendment case brought by
photojournalists relating to a protest incident. 
 

On August 25, 2020, two photojournalists were documenting a protest at the Kenosha County Courthouse. The protest was
sparked by the shooting of a 29-year-old Black male by a City of
Kenosha police officer. During the protest, both protestors and police officers
launched objects at one another, including the officers’ launching of foam
batons that hit and injured the journalists. Shortly after the incident, the journalists filed a lawsuit against two police officers who were at
the protest. They claimed the officers
intentionally struck them in retaliation for engaging in the First Amendment
protected activity of protesting and used excessive force in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. The district court ruled against the journalists, who
appealed the district court’s ruling.

The Seventh Circuit upheld the
district court’s ruling in favor of the police officers. As to the journalists’ First Amendment claim, the Seventh Circuit
found there was no evidence that either officer intentionally targeted the journalists for engaging in their First Amendment right to protest. The Court
found that the officers’ use-of-force reports (which failed to accurately state the total number of rounds deployed during the protest) were not enough to show that the officers intentionally
targeted the photojournalists.

As to the Fourth
Amendment claim, the Seventh Circuit found that the officers had qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit determined that it was not “clearly established” by case
law whether an officer’s intentional deployment of less-than-lethal munitions
that hit unintended targets during a protest constitutes a seizure under the
Fourth Amendment, so the journalists could not defeat the officers’ claims of qualified
immunity.

Authored by Rachel Stempler, Ancel Glink

Municipal Minute is authored by Julie Tappendorf, a partner at the Ancel Glink law firm in Chicago, to provide timely legal updates on topics of interest to local governments.

     

Related Stories

  • Seventh Circuit Upholds Removal of Public Employee for Social Media Posts
  • County Not Liable for Former Coroner’s Actions in Keeping Skull
  • School Board Violated First Amendment in Restricting Critical Public Comment

 

Photo of Julie Tappendorf Julie Tappendorf

Julie Tappendorf is an equity partner at the Ancel Glink law firm in Chicago. She represents clients in local government, land use, social media, and litigation matters.

EmailJulie's Linkedin ProfileJulie's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory, Personal Injury
  • Blog:
    Municipal Minute
  • Organization:
    Ancel Glink, P.C.
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo