In a significant ruling on Thursday, a federal judge in Chicago imposed a comprehensive injunction that restricts the use of force by federal agents. This decision follows allegations against a senior Border Patrol official, who reportedly misrepresented the threats posed by both protesters and journalists during a recent immigration crackdown. The injunction comes as a response to a lawsuit filed by various news outlets and activists, highlighting concerns over excessive force employed by federal agents amidst a crackdown that has led to over 3,000 arrests in the city and its suburbs.
U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis expressed her skepticism regarding the credibility of the defendants, stating, “I see little reason for the use of force that the federal agents are currently using.” The preliminary injunction specifically restricts agents from deploying certain riot control weapons, including tear gas and pepper balls, unless such measures are deemed “objectively necessary” to counter an immediate threat. Furthermore, the ruling mandates that agents must issue two warnings prior to using any riot control measures and prohibits physical force against protesters and journalists.
Judge Ellis emphasized that her order aims to protect the “chilling of First Amendment rights.” A representative from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) criticized the ruling, labeling it an “extreme act by an activist judge” that jeopardizes the safety of law enforcement personnel. This crackdown, part of the Trump administration’s broader federal intervention strategy in traditionally Democratic areas, has ignited a series of legal challenges, including demands for improvements at immigration facilities and halting National Guard deployments.
The ruling echoes a previous temporary order requiring federal agents to wear identification badges and limiting the use of certain riot-control measures against peaceful protesters and journalists. After expressing frustration with federal officials for disregarding her past orders, Judge Ellis mandated the use of body cameras for agents involved in these operations.
During her ruling, Judge Ellis referenced historical figures, including George Washington, and quoted a renowned poem about Chicago by Carl Sandburg. She described the alarming experiences of protesters who faced tear gas, intimidation from armed agents, and physical assaults, stating that such actions would understandably deter individuals from exercising their fundamental rights.
In a lengthy eight-hour hearing held the day prior, attorneys for both sides clashed over various incidents that occurred since the commencement of the immigration crackdown in September. A focal point of the hearings was Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, who has been at the forefront of the operation. Notably, Judge Ellis highlighted that Bovino had retracted claims regarding being struck by a rock, a statement that was contradicted by video evidence. “Bovino admitted that he lied,” she remarked, also noting discrepancies in his accounts of using force against a demonstrator.
As the head of a Border Patrol sector in El Centro, California, Bovino has faced numerous hours of closed-door depositions related to the ongoing legal challenges associated with “Operation Midway Blitz.” Video footage from these depositions, where Bovino appeared evasive at times, was presented in court alongside body camera recordings. While he has defended the actions of federal agents, he has often sidestepped inquiries regarding their specific tactics.
During the Wednesday hearing, witnesses provided powerful testimonies recounting their traumatic experiences with tear gas and pepper balls while participating in peaceful protests. Several individuals described incidents where they were shot in the head with projectiles or faced intimidation from armed agents. Witnesses expressed a profound sense of anxiety about returning to advocacy or protest activities, with youth organizer Leslie Cortez from Cicero, a Chicago suburb, stating, “I get really nervous because it just feels like I’m not safe.”
The implications of this ruling are significant, as it seeks to redefine the parameters of federal agents' conduct in public protests and emphasizes the importance of upholding constitutional rights amidst ongoing law enforcement actions.
