Federal Judge Restricts Tear Gas Use At Portland ICE Facility

Federal agents stationed at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland are now under strict new limits after a federal judge issued a sweeping temporary restraining order, following a weekend of protests that saw tear gas and other crowd-control munitions used against nonviolent demonstrators—including children and seniors. The order, handed down on February 3, 2026, by U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon, bars agents from deploying chemical or projectile munitions against crowds unless there is an “imminent threat of physical harm.”

This legal development is the latest turn in a protracted battle over protest rights, police tactics, and government accountability in Portland, a city that has become a flashpoint for national debates on public dissent and law enforcement response. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in November 2025 by protesters and freelance journalists, led by the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over what they describe as excessive and indiscriminate use of force outside the Portland ICE facility.

According to Oregon Capital Chronicle, the temporary restraining order—set to last 14 days—specifically prohibits federal agents from using tear gas, flashbang grenades, pepper spray, kinetic impact projectiles, pepper ball guns, and a host of other less-lethal weapons except in situations where a genuine threat to physical safety exists. The order also bars agents from targeting the head, neck, or torso with these munitions unless deadly force is legally justified, and prevents the use of such weapons to simply disperse crowds or punish those refusing to comply with dispersal orders—a frequent occurrence during recent protests.

Judge Simon’s 22-page order pulls no punches, warning, “The repeated shooting and teargassing of nonviolent protesters at the Portland ICE Building will likely keep recurring against (protesters and journalists).” He went further, stating, “Statements made by DHS officials and senior federal executives show that the culture of the agency and its employees is to celebrate violent responses over fair and diplomatic ones.”

For many Portlanders, the weekend of February 1-2, 2026, was a tipping point. On Saturday, a labor union-organized protest drew a crowd of about two thousand—teachers, nurses, construction workers, children, and pets among them—to Elizabeth Caruthers Park near the ICE facility. The demonstration, which included signs of solidarity with similar protests in Minneapolis and calls for ICE to stop detaining children, was met with a barrage of flashbangs and tear gas from federal agents, deployed without warning. This, according to the ACLU lawsuit, violated existing department protocols that require verbal warnings before such force is used.

Children and elderly protesters were caught in the chaos, forced to flee through thick clouds of tear gas that left many in distress. Laurie Eckman, an 84-year-old protester, described her ordeal in sworn testimony: “As I walked north on S. Moody, I had to walk through sequential tear gas clouds from canisters that detonated ahead of me as I tried to exit the area. I held on to a person next to me as I walked and held a tissue over my nose. I could not keep my eyes open, my face stung, and it was hard to breathe. People were retching, vomiting, and crying.”

The following day, several hundred protesters marched from Portland City Hall to the ICE facility, again facing heavy use of tear gas—so much that the fumes were visible and felt nearly a mile away. Residents of the nearby Gray’s Landing apartment building, a 209-unit low-income complex, reported unprecedented amounts of gas seeping into their homes. One canister shattered a window while a resident was inside, prompting the building’s owner, Reach Community Development, to file its own lawsuit to halt the use of tear gas near residential areas.

City leaders and Oregon’s congressional delegation responded with swift condemnation. In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, along with Representatives Suzanne Bonamici, Janelle Bynum, Maxine Dexter, and Andrea Salinas—all Democrats—demanded the immediate withdrawal of federal agents from Portland. “This administration lacks any legal basis to continue its failed campaign of inciting violence in our communities, whether in Oregon, Minnesota, or anywhere else in America. Your violence has already wounded and killed too many people in U.S. cities,” they wrote, adding, “We demand you immediately end using excessive force against our communities and withdraw your federal agents from Oregon.”

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson echoed these sentiments, calling the judge’s ruling “an indictment of the Trump administration’s authoritarian tactics in Portland.” He added, “Federal agents have used unconscionable levels of force against a community exercising their constitutional right to free expression. Portlanders will continue to show up, stand with our immigrant neighbors, and win through peace. Peaceful civic participation isn’t a threat, and these new restrictions on federal agents are an important first step in ending the violence and harm we’ve witnessed in our community.”

Yet, federal officials offered a starkly different account. Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Oregon Public Broadcasting that protesters “violently stormed” the ICE facility, threw rocks and other objects at officers and cameras, attempted to tie the vehicle gate shut with ropes, and moved a dumpster to block the front gate. This narrative of protester violence has been used by federal authorities to justify the use of force, though the recent court order now places the burden on agents to demonstrate imminent physical danger before deploying munitions.

The class-action lawsuit, as detailed in Willamette Week, was brought by five local residents, including Jack Dickinson—known as the “Portland Chicken” for his protest attire—Laurie and Richard Eckman (the latter a Vietnam War Navy veteran who uses a walker), freelance photojournalist Hugo Rios (an Air Force veteran), and video journalist Mason Lake. The plaintiffs allege that federal agents repeatedly used unnecessary, excessive, and indiscriminate force in retaliation for protesting and reporting on government actions, while permitting pro-administration individuals to record events from behind police lines.

Judge Simon’s ruling drew on foundational American legal principles, writing, “In a well-functioning constitutional democratic republic, free speech, courageous newsgathering, and nonviolent protest are all permitted, respected, and even celebrated. In an authoritarian regime, that is not the case. Our nation is now at a crossroads.” He further emphasized, “The public interest in protecting First Amendment rights cannot be overemphasized. Freedom of speech, including through political protest, is ‘one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.’”

Meanwhile, the Portland City Council has taken its own steps, voting to impose an impact fee on detention facilities that release chemical residues—a clear signal of the city’s intent to hold such institutions accountable for environmental and public health consequences.

The next legal milestone comes on March 2, 2026, when Judge Simon is set to consider making the temporary restraining order permanent. As the city waits, the case has become a touchstone for national conversations about protest, policing, and the boundaries of government power. For now, Portland’s streets are quieter, but the debate over the rights of protesters and the responsibilities of those sworn to protect them is far from settled.