Politics
Federal Appeals Court Lifts Bans on Tear Gas Use Outside Portland ICE Facility
A Ninth Circuit panel overturned two lower-court injunctions that had restricted federal agents from using chemical crowd-control weapons near Portland's ICE building, dealing a blow to protesters and nearby residents who argued the tactics violated their constitutional rights.
A federal appeals court panel on Tuesday overturned two temporary bans that had restricted federal law enforcement from using tear gas, pepper balls and other chemical munitions for crowd control outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland's South Waterfront.
The pair of 2-1 decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit formalized a pause the panel had tentatively imposed in July, reversing earlier rulings by two Oregon district judges who had found merit in claims brought by protesters and residents of a neighboring affordable-housing complex.
The lawsuits stemmed from repeated clashes in late 2025 between federal officers stationed at the facility and demonstrators opposing President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement agenda. While the intersection outside the building has been relatively calm for most of this year, the appellate rulings will shape how federal agents respond should large protests return during the final two years of Trump's presidency.
In one ruling, the panel found that residents of Gray's Landing â a complex diagonally across from the ICE facility, represented collectively by REACH Community Development â had not convincingly shown that the Constitution shields them from tear gas exposure when officers deploy the munitions for crowd control. Residents had described tear gas seeping into their homes so pervasively that some wore gas masks to sleep, and said the chemicals worsened pre-existing medical conditions.
"We are deeply disappointed by this decision, which leaves Gray's Landing residents without the protections they sought after chemical munitions deployed by federal agents repeatedly polluted their homes and disrupted their daily lives," Sky Perryman of the legal group Democracy Forward said in a statement.
The ruling dissolves only the district judge's injunction; it does not end the underlying lawsuit, and attorneys can continue to pursue the case.
In the second decision, the panel rejected arguments from protesters and independent journalists, represented by the ACLU of Oregon, that the use of tear gas violated their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs had contended that agents indiscriminately fired chemical irritants at crowds that posed no physical threat.
"Law enforcement agents may use nonlethal force to clear crowds and restore order â they need not wait until they face 'an imminent threat of physical harm,'" Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee wrote for the majority.
Attorneys for the ACLU did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The outcome carries significance beyond Portland: it gives federal law enforcement a clearer legal footing to deploy tear gas, flash-bang grenades and similar munitions against crowds, and it leaves residents and demonstrators with fewer immediate legal tools to challenge those tactics as the litigation continues.