Background
Since June two thousand twenty-five, the Portland ICE facility has faced significant unrest, including protests involving vandalism, trespassing, and obstruction of law enforcement. Five plaintiffs, including protesters and journalists, sued the federal government alleging an unwritten policy of using excessive force to retaliate against their First Amendment activities. The district court issued a preliminary injunction restricting the use of chemical and projectile munitions unless a specific target posed an imminent threat of physical harm and ordered a redesign of agent uniforms.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit determined that the district court erred by conflating the standard for using force against imminent lawlessness with the standard for First Amendment retaliation. The court cited Puente versus City of Phoenix, establishing that officers may use non-lethal munitions to address riot, disorder, or interference with traffic. The appellate court found no evidence of an unwritten policy of retaliation, noting that the plaintiffs were likely collateral casualties in efforts to quell disorder. Furthermore, the court ruled the injunction was overbroad because it extended relief to non-parties and attempted to micromanage law enforcement tactics and uniform design, exceeding the court’s equitable powers.
Federal courts are not the couture of law enforcement officers.
Opinion at page 3
What it means going forward
The stay allows federal agents to resume using non-lethal crowd-control munitions to disperse crowds engaging in unlawful activities such as trespassing and blocking entrances at the Portland ICE facility, pending further appellate review.