Original Date Announced

DHS issued a final rule governing the protection of federal property that creates regulations allowing violations to be charged both on and adjacent to federal property. The rule expands enforcement authority to cover both U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) property and non-GSA property, promotes consistent charging practices across all DHS-protected sites, and "modernize[s] the personal conduct regulations to address technological advanced and [a] changing threat environment." Among other prohibited conduct, the regulation prohibits the following "on Federal property or in areas outside federal property":

• Disorderly conduct
• "Wearing a mask, hood, disguise, or device that conceals the identity of the wearer when attempting to avoid detection or identification while violating any Federal, state, or local law, ordinance, or regulation."
• "Creating a loud or unusual noise, noxious odor, or other nuisance."
• Obstructing the use or enjoyment of Federal property
• Impeding or disrupting security inspection processes administered by security personnel
• Cmaping
• Trespassing, entering, or "remaining in or upon areas of Federal property closed to the public"

Previously, DHS relied on the Federal Management Regulation's criminal provisions, which only applied to GSA-property and only to conduct occurring directly on those properties, not conduct adjacent to such properties. The rule was initially proposed in the final week of the Biden administration.

Trump 2.0 [ID #2058]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.11.05 DHS - Protection of Federal Property; Changed Effective Date

DHS published a final rule changing the effective date of the final rule described in this entry from January 1, 2026, to November 5, 2025. It states that there is "good cause" to bypass notice-and-comment rulemaking and a delayed effective date, asserting that "there has been a substantial rise in civil unrest near federal buildings, destruction of federal property, and violence perpetrated against federal officials" over the last few months--specifically "riots" in Los Angeles and Portland tied to immigration enforcement, an incident in Chicago involving a car and a woman shot multiple times by a Border Patrol agent, and the shooting of several immigration detainees by a sniper at an ICE field office in Dallas.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.12.05 Complaint - Longworth v. Trump

Chloe Longworth and Anna Lardner, two individuals who regularly protest outside ICE's field office in Eugene, Oregon, filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and an alleged class of other protestors challenging DHS's final rule regarding the protection of federal property. Longworth and Lardner sued alleging that the new regulations are unconstitutionally vague and thus violate the Administrative Procedures Act and violate the First Amendment. Longworth v. Trump, 6:25-cv-02268, (D. Or.)

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.12.10 Opinion and Order on TRO - Longworth v. Trump

Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting, for fourteen days, President Donald Trump, Kristi Noem, and DHS from enforcing 6 CFR § 139.35(c), which prohibits individuals from making "unusual noise" on or near federal property (the "Unusual Noise Provision"), on the sidewalks surrounding the federal building in Eugene, Oregon that houses ICE offices. The Court found that the plaintiff-protestors were likely to success on their vagueness and overbreadth challenges to the Provision because it likely "has the unconstitutional effect of chilling speech through either vagueness, overbreadth, or both." Longworth v. Trump, 6:25-cv-02268 (D. Or.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.