A federal court has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employed excessive force at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in South Portland, requiring the agency to temporarily halt its use of chemical munitions. U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon issued a temporary restraining order, emphasizing the constitutional importance of free speech and peaceful protest within a democratic society, in contrast to the practices typically seen in authoritarian regimes.
In his ruling, Judge Simon articulated that, “In a well-functioning constitutional democratic republic, free speech, courageous newsgathering, and nonviolent protest are all permitted, respected, and even celebrated.” He noted that the judiciary holds a vital role in steering the nation back to its constitutional principles.
The case, brought by a diverse group of plaintiffs including local residents, veterans, and journalists, alleged that their First Amendment rights were violated through retaliatory actions and the excessive use of force by federal agents. The temporary restraining order restricts federal personnel from deploying chemical or projectile munitions unless there’s an imminent threat of physical harm, and it demands legal justification for the use of any less-lethal weapons.
The order will remain effective for 14 days, with a potential extension, as plaintiffs are expected to file for a preliminary injunction by February 12, 2026. A subsequent hearing is scheduled for March 2, 2026.
The class-action lawsuit, initiated by the ACLU of Oregon against the Trump administration in November 2025, highlighted incidents reminiscent of federal responses seen during protests under “Operation Diligent Valor” in 2020. Plaintiffs provided video evidence alleging that federal officers discharged munitions and flashbangs without warning during recent protests. These incidents included footage of a child needing medical aid after exposure to gas and federal agents firing into the crowd as demonstrators attempted to disperse.
The plaintiffs sought relief aimed at curtailing the use of force during passive resistance and preventing dangerous applications of crowd-control methods by DHS. They referenced legal precedents, claiming that non-compliance should not justify the application of serious force.
In a response to the court proceedings, DHS has reportedly sought an out-of-court settlement and clarified its protocols regarding the application of force, stating that verbal warnings should be given whenever feasible before any use of force occurs. However, discrepancies arose regarding the number of protesters and arrests during the incidents. DHS previously reported varying figures, asserting that the protests escalated to involve over 500 individuals.
Local law enforcement agencies have been cautious in their declarations, with the Portland Police Bureau not labeling the protests as riots, a status they’ve only assigned once in the entire year of 2025.
As the legal proceedings unfold, this ruling underscores a continuing national dialogue about the balance between enforcement strategies and the protection of constitutional rights. It highlights a growing trend where advocacy for civil liberties is increasingly juxtaposed against federal law enforcement tactics, reflecting a nation grappling with its core democratic values in times of social unrest.