The Ninth Circuit reversed parts of a district court injunction in the Portland protests case, allowing federal officers more leeway to use common crowd-control tools against demonstrators and rejecting claims that agents followed an unwritten policy of retaliation.
The Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel stepped into a messy situation outside the Portland ICE building and altered the balance between protester protections and law enforcement authority. For months, rounds of vandalism, obstruction, and violent tactics around the facility made maintaining order difficult. The appellate ruling pushes back against an injunction that had sharply limited how federal agents respond to dangerous behavior at that site.
The entire post reads (emphasis added):
The three-panel decision, issued by judges Kenneth Lee, Eric Tung, “and Ana de Alba (dissent), reads as follows:
“The First Amendment does not protect vandalism, criminal trespass, or obstruction of law enforcement. Such unlawful acts, however, have been commonplace around the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) building in Portland over the past year.”
Numerous provocateurs—many wielding bats, shields, and strobe lights that disrupt vision—have hurled bricks, smashed security cameras, and blocked the driveway to prevent ICE cars from entering or exiting the building. In response, the government has used tear gas, pepper balls, and other non-lethal munitions to disperse the crowd.”
“Five plaintiffs sued the government, alleging that they are peaceful protesters who have been injured as a result of the crowd-control tactics. But they do not contend that they are collateral casualties caught in the crossfire—they claim that the government specifically targeted them in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights.”
“The plaintiffs have not shown that the agents had the subjective intent to retaliate or that the government has an unwritten policy targeting them. Much of the evidence shows the government trying to clear the entrance to the ICE facility in the face of unrest and an unruly crowd. And while some individual incidents might indicate an arguably disproportionate use of force, they alone do not amount to an unwritten policy of retaliation.”
The panel’s language underlines a basic point: violent, obstructive acts are not shielded by the First Amendment. That matters because law enforcement must be able to stop criminal behavior before it escalates or endangers officers and bystanders. The ruling recognizes the chaotic reality on the ground around that ICE office, where the line between protest and lawlessness repeatedly blurred.
The plaintiffs say they are trying to prove targeted retaliation, and they plan to bring more evidence forward to bolster that claim. The litigation will continue in the lower court as both sides sort through bodycam footage, witness accounts, and incident reports. Meanwhile, the appellate opinion means several restrictions on crowd-control tactics are loosened, at least for now.
The lead plaintiff in the case is Jack Dickinson, known as the Portland Chicken.
He is a colorful local figure who draws attention, and the court will have to weigh his claims against the broader context of repeated property damage and obstruction. That context is central to the judges’ skepticism about an organized policy of targeted retaliation.
The Ninth Circuit also faulted the district court for sweeping remedies that overreach into operational policing choices. “In any event, the district court’s injunction is too broad. Under the injunction, the government cannot use common crowd-control tactics even if people vandalize federal property or block the entrance to the building to thwart law enforcement,” it said. “But such unlawful activities are not protected by the First Amendment, and thus the district court erred in handcuffing the government’s ability to counter such illegal behavior. Finally, the district court acted beyond its authority in ordering a redesign of the ICE agents’ uniforms so that they have more “conspicuous and unique identifying markings.” Federal courts are not the couture of law enforcement officers.”
Local Republican leaders praised the decision as a commonsense correction that restores needed tools for federal agents to protect property and personnel. Those officials argue the injunction had tied the hands of officers facing repeated attempts to disable security and prevent ICE vehicles from leaving. The appellate opinion is being spun by supporters as a necessary reaffirmation of law and order in Portland.
Expect more filings and evidence to filter through the courts as the case proceeds, and for both sides to continue making sharply different claims about intent and tactics. The parties will now litigate whether isolated incidents amount to a policy and whether particular uses of force were reasonable given the on-site conditions. The legal fight is far from over, but the Ninth Circuit’s move gives federal agents clearer breathing room to respond to outright criminal conduct.
We should remember the basic point driving this dispute: democratic protest is protected, but violent obstruction, property destruction, and efforts to endanger others are not. Editor’s Note: Democrat politicians and their radical supporters will do everything they can to interfere with and threaten ICE agents enforcing our immigration laws.
