A federal judge extended a temporary restraining order (TRO) that bars federal agents at Portland's ICE facility from using tear gas on protesters for another two weeks. 

US District Judge Michael Simon issued the order on Tuesday, February 17, the day the TRO was set to expire. According to the initial order, agents are prohibited from using projectiles, or chemical munitions like tear gas except for in narrow circumstances. 

What are the terms?

The ruling restricts crowd control weapons "unless the specific target of such a weapon or device poses an imminent threat of physical harm to a law enforcement officer or other person."

The order also states that agents can't use crowd control munitions to target someone if it could endanger others who pose no risk or threat. That means agents can't use tear gas or rubber bullets or pepper balls solely for the purposes of clearing protesters from the ICE building driveway, or for protesters' refusal to obey dispersal orders.

The restraining order also stipulates that agents may not deploy munitions or weapons at any person's head, neck, or torso, unless they are legally justified in using deadly force against that person. 

The extension came the day after Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield submitted supporting evidence and arguments to aid the plaintiffs in their class-action case against the Department of Homeland Security. The plaintiffs allege their First Amendment Rights have been violated and they've been subjected to excessive force from federal agents working at the ICE facility. The lawsuit was filed in November 2025 by the ACLU of Oregon and attorneys from four other law firms on behalf of protesters and journalists. 

In the order, Judge Simon said there is "good cause" for extending the TRO to preserve the status quo and because lawyers with the US Department of Justice "have not disclaimed the conduct that gave rise to the original TRO," implying the federal government does not deny the tactics it continues to use, and submitted no evidence to justify denying the extension.

In its request for a two-week restraining order extension, the ACLU of Oregon noted DHS agents in Portland used chemical and projectile munitions on large crowds at the ICE facility, including nonviolent protesters, children, seniors, and families, while the initial motion for a restraining order was pending. ACLU attorneys also noted DHS is prone to lying, even when faced with video evidence that contradicts their claims.

"Consistent with its conduct in many other instances (such as claiming that Alex Pretti had 'attacked' DHS officers and was 'brandishing' a gun at DHS agents when they killed him), DHS offered a narrative about the events at issue that has little relationship to the reality documented in numerous unrefuted declarations now in the record, and alluded to using violence on those who 'disobey its commands,'" ACLU's February 16 motion states. The court filing also noted that DHS characterized a large group of mostly peaceful protesters who marched together in a rally last month as "250 rioters."

DHS did not respond to questions from the Mercury about how the agency is advising its agents to comply with the court order.

Judge: Nation is at a "crossroads"

The plaintiffs in the case have also requested a preliminary injunction, which would keep the restraining order in place until the trial happens. While it's unclear whether Judge Simon will grant that request, his initial opinion and order laid bare his observations of the Trump administration's extreme, and often brazenly lawless behavior.

"In a well-functioning constitutional democratic republic, free speech, courageous newsgathering, and nonviolent protest are all permitted, respected, and even celebrated," Simon wrote in the opening lines of his February 3 judicial order. "In an authoritarian regime, that is not the case. Our nation is now at a crossroads. We have been here before and have previously returned to the right path, notwithstanding an occasional detour. In helping our nation find its constitutional compass, an impartial and independent judiciary operating under the rule of law has a responsibility that it may not shirk." 

The ACLU did not immediately respond to the Mercury's request for comment Tuesday, but in a prior announcement of the initial restraining order, the organization warned that without intervention from the courts, there is "an imminent risk that officers will seriously maim or kill someone, as they have done repeatedly within the last few weeks in other parts of the country."

For the most part, it seems Simon agreed, concluding that "repeated shooting and teargassing of nonviolent protesters at the Portland ICE Building will likely keep recurring..." "Defendants’ violence is in no way isolated. Similarly, statements made by DHS
officials and senior federal executives show that the culture of the agency and its employees is to celebrate violent responses over fair and diplomatic ones."