A federal judge on Monday granted preliminary victories to press organizations in two lawsuits accusing the Los Angeles Police Department and the Department of Homeland Security of policies that impede newsgathering and withhold records central to public oversight. The orders temporarily block enforcement of practices the news groups said chilled reporting and require production of certain records while litigation proceeds.

Attorneys for the coalition of national and local news outlets argued that the policies and withholding of records violated the First Amendment and federal public-records laws. In the case against the LAPD, the judge enjoined enforcement of rules the plaintiffs said allowed officers to deny or revoke credentialing and to restrict journalists’ access at protests and other public events. In the DHS litigation, the judge ordered expedited disclosure of documents the press sought about the department’s monitoring and handling of journalists who cover immigration enforcement, including at border facilities.

“This is a victory for journalists and the communities who depend on their work to hold power to account,” said a lawyer for the press coalition in a court filing. The plaintiffs said the orders would help reporters cover protests, policing practices and conditions inside detention facilities—coverage that often informs public-health responses and policy debates.

The rulings underscore an ongoing tension between law-enforcement and national-security agencies and the press over access and secrecy. Civil liberties lawyers and press advocates have pointed to the 2020 protests over police violence, instances of journalists being arrested or targeted, and years of limited transparency around detention centers as contexts that make these cases consequential. Independent reporting on infectious disease outbreaks, mental-health crises in jails, and conditions in immigration detention centers has repeatedly shaped public-policy decisions and resource allocation.

“Transparency is not a luxury when public health and civil liberties are at stake,” said an advocacy group spokesperson, adding that secrecy disproportionately harms marginalized communities who rely on media coverage to document abuses and trigger oversight. Public-health officials and clinicians have frequently depended on investigative reporting to identify outbreaks, staffing shortages and unsafe conditions that otherwise might remain hidden.

The LAPD and DHS issued terse statements in response. A department spokesperson for the LAPD declined to comment beyond saying the department “respects the judicial process.” A DHS spokeswoman said the department “takes seriously both the protection of sensitive operations and the constitutional rights of the press,” and that it would comply with the court’s orders while reviewing its options.

Legal experts said the preliminary nature of the rulings means the government could appeal and that the ultimate outcome will be decided on the merits at trial or on further motion practice. But they also noted the practical effect: judges granting such relief often prompt agencies to revise policies or produce records rather than face protracted litigation and public scrutiny.

For journalists, public-health officials and community advocates, the decisions are likely to ease immediate obstacles to reporting. For communities of color, immigrants and other vulnerable groups, proponents said, the rulings could restore a critical avenue for documenting conditions that affect health, safety and civic participation. The cases are likely to remain a touchstone in broader debates over balancing public-safety prerogatives and the press’s role as a check on government power.