The Trump administration scored a major legal victory Tuesday after a federal appeals court lifted restrictions on immigration agents’ use of tear gas and other crowd-control weapons during protests outside an ICE facility in Portland, Oregon.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with federal authorities, blocking a lower court’s injunction that limited how agents could respond to demonstrations outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.
The ruling also removed a requirement that federal officers wear more visible identifying markings on their uniforms.
The decision delivers a victory for President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda following months of legal battles over protests at the Portland facility.
The dispute began after five protesters and journalists accused federal officers of using tear gas, pepper balls and other less-lethal weapons against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights.
A federal district judge previously imposed restrictions on those tactics, generally prohibiting agents from deploying certain crowd-control weapons unless a person presented an imminent threat of physical harm.
The injunction also limited where officers could fire projectiles and restricted the use of pepper spray against protesters.
But the Trump administration challenged the order, arguing that the restrictions prevented federal agents from responding effectively to unlawful conduct.
NEW: In a 2-1 vote, the Ninth Circuit lifted court-ordered limits on federal agents’ use of tear gas and other crowd-control weapons at protests outside a Portland ICE facility, along with a requirement that agents wear more visible identifying markings on their uniforms. https://t.co/AtzbHZEqvl
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) November 10, 2026
The appeals court majority agreed that the lower court had gone too far.
Judges Kenneth K. Lee and Eric C. Tung concluded that the restrictions were overly broad and could interfere with officers’ ability to maintain order around federal property.
The majority emphasized that constitutional protections for peaceful demonstrations do not extend to vandalism, trespassing or obstructing law enforcement operations.
Federal authorities argued that demonstrations outside the Portland ICE facility had repeatedly escalated into confrontations involving property damage, blocked entrances and attempts to interfere with federal operations.
POLL: Will America Regret Giving The Democrats Power?
According to court records, officers encountered protesters carrying shields and other equipment, while some demonstrators allegedly threw objects at law enforcement personnel and damaged security infrastructure.
The majority determined that federal agents must retain the ability to respond to unlawful activity without necessarily waiting until someone faces an immediate threat of physical injury.
Judges also found insufficient evidence, at this stage of the proceedings, that officers deliberately targeted peaceful protesters or journalists in retaliation for exercising their constitutional rights.
That finding undercut a central argument advanced by the plaintiffs, who maintained that federal authorities had engaged in a pattern of unconstitutional retaliation.
The court also criticized the injunction for extending protections beyond the five individuals who originally brought the lawsuit.
Rather than limiting relief to those plaintiffs, the lower court had imposed restrictions covering a broader group of people protesting or reporting near the ICE facility.
The appeals court concluded that the expansive order exceeded what was justified by the evidence presented.
Another portion of the decision addressed the identification requirements imposed on federal officers.
The district court had directed federal authorities to develop more prominent identifying markings for agents’ uniforms, vests or helmets.
The majority determined that the requirement went beyond the lower court’s authority.
However, the ruling was not unanimous.
Judge Ana de Alba agreed that portions of the injunction were too broad but disagreed with eliminating all restrictions on the use of crowd-control weapons.
She would have preserved protections against officers firing certain munitions at protesters’ heads, necks or torsos unless deadly force was legally justified.
De Alba also concluded that the record contained sufficient evidence to support concerns about retaliation against peaceful demonstrators and journalists.
The ruling does not give immigration agents unlimited authority to use force or eliminate the constitutional protections afforded to peaceful protesters.
Instead, it stays the preliminary injunction while the legal challenge proceeds, allowing federal authorities greater flexibility under existing law.
The decision comes amid continued scrutiny of the Trump administration‘s immigration enforcement operations, particularly in Democratic-led cities where federal agents have faced organized demonstrations.
For now, the administration has secured a significant courtroom victory, with the appeals court allowing ICE agents to resume crowd-control operations without the additional restrictions imposed by the Oregon district court.
