Ninth Circuit Lifts Tear Gas Restrictions at Portland ICE Facility
A Ninth Circuit panel lifted two injunctions, allowing federal agents to use tear gas at the Portland ICE facility.
Why it matters: This decision shifts the balance of law enforcement tactics at federal sites and raises significant questions for civil rights lawyers and advocates focusing on the limits of government power in crowd control and immigration enforcement.
- The April 27, 2026, ruling lifts restrictions on chemical munitions use by federal agents.
- The decision was split 2-1, with Judges Tung and Lee in the majority.
- Injunctions had limited force to imminent threats; those limits are now removed.
- Residents and protesters alleged harm from exposure; a dissent cited public health risks.
On April 27, 2026, a split Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel struck down earlier restrictions on federal agents’ use of tear gas and chemical munitions outside Portland's ICE facility.
- Judges Eric Tung and Kenneth Lee, both Trump-appointees, formed the majority. Judge Ana de Alba dissented.
- The majority ruled, "No such right exists in the Constitution" in response to claims that tear gas exposure violated residents' and protesters' rights.
- The original injunctions, issued in March 2026 by District Judges Michael Simon and Amy Baggio, limited chemical use to situations involving imminent threats of physical harm.
- The lawsuits were brought by the ACLU of Oregon and residents of the Gray's Landing apartments, who reported acute respiratory distress and chemical burns following exposure.
Federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security, defended the use of tear gas as necessary for protecting federal property and officers during sometimes-violent protests near the site, which has been a regular protest target over immigration policies.
Judge Tung wrote, "Our Constitution is not a NIMBY charter. Our founding document does not address neighborhood grievances concerning unwanted smells and gas—no matter how unpleasant those may be."
The dissent, by Judge de Alba, emphasized the health risks to residents and local protesters, arguing the ruling "disregards the severe health impacts." Plaintiffs expressed disappointment, stating the decision "eliminate[s] critical protections for the residents of Gray's Landing."
Read more details in the Courthouse News and KPTV coverage.
By the numbers:
- 2-1 — Split appellate panel decision
- March 2026 — Date of initial preliminary injunctions
- Acute respiratory distress, chemical burns — Health issues reported by residents
Yes, but: Further appeals or new legal challenges remain possible, given the case's high profile.