Judge Blocks Noem’s Officers from Using Force on Portland Protesters, Defends Against ‘Authoritarian Tactics

A U.S. federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order preventing Trump administration officials from using “chemical or projectile munitions” against protesters without prior notice outside an ICE facility in Portland, Oregon.

In his 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael Simon characterized the current state of America as being “at a crossroads” and described his role as a protector against any form of “authoritarian regime.”

Judge Simon strongly defended the right to protest against President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and underscored the constitutional right to report on government actions without experiencing intimidation, such as “physically harming protesters and journalists without prior dispersal warnings.”

“In a functioning constitutional democratic republic, free speech, courageous journalism, and peaceful protest are not only allowed but respected and celebrated. This is not the case in an authoritarian regime. Our nation stands at a crossroads,” Simon stated. “We have faced this before and have managed to return to the right path, despite occasional detours. In guiding our nation toward its constitutional direction, an impartial and independent judiciary governed by the rule of law must fulfill its duty without hesitation.”

The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs Laurie and Richard Eckman, an elderly couple, Jack Dickinson, known as the “Portland Chicken,” and journalists Mason Lake and Hugo Rios, alleges that the Department of Homeland Security engaged in violence against them as they legally protested or conducted journalistic activities outside the ICE facility. The suit is aimed at Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

“Officers working for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security shot 84-year-old Laurie Eckman in the head with a chemical impact munition while she was peacefully holding a sign on a public street. She walked home soaked in blood,” the judge recounted. “Later that evening, she was treated in an emergency room, where she was diagnosed with a concussion. Earlier that day, DHS hit 83-year-old Richard Eckman’s walker with chemical munitions, after opening fire on a nonviolent crowd that included Mr. and Mrs. Eckman.”

Dickinson, wearing a chicken suit, was allegedly shoved by agents while on a public sidewalk near the driveway of the ICE facility and then “shot[…] in the back with munitions” from the roof.

Lake and Rios each said they were hit by munitions while covering the protests; Lake was struck in the groin area and Rios was hit “with pepper balls approximately 20 times.”

Simon, a Barack Obama appointee, pointed out that the incidents the plaintiffs described “are not infrequent,” “are escalating,” and “go back to June 2025,” which was three months before Trump federalized the National Guard.

U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut, a Trump appointee, remarked in November that the unrest outside the Portland ICE facility was at the “high watermark of violence and unlawful activity” in June, but thereafter protests were “generally uneventful with occasional interference to federal personnel and property.”

Immergut then blocked Trump from deploying the National Guard, finding there was a mismatch between the president’s determinations and the facts on the ground as to the level of threat that protests posed to federal property and federal officers.

“Applying ‘a great level of deference to the President’s determination that a predicate condition exists,’ this Court nonetheless concludes that the President’s invocation of Section 12406 was likely not made ‘in the face of the emergency and directly related to the quelling of the disorder or the prevention of its continuance,’” Immergut said.

Simon similarly agreed that the plaintiffs have “strong evidence” that the “violence” of federal officers is disproportionate to what was happening on the ground.

The judge pointed to the testimony of Portland Police Bureau Commander Franz Schoening, who said that his officers were hit by “munitions” for no apparent reason.

“Schoening testified that it was his impression that the amount of force used by federal officers at the Portland ICE Building is not a good indication of the level of violence or unrest caused by protests at that location,” Simon recounted. “Commander Schoening called the DHS force used on one specific occasion that he personally observed ‘startling’ and ‘certainly departed from what I would say was best practice or legal.’”

“Commander Schoening also described another occasion when Portland Police Bureau Officers were struck by munitions fired by federal officers despite Commander Schoening not seeing ‘any violent conduct or behavior that would have otherwise precipitated that use of force,” he added.

As a result, Simon determined the plaintiffs have standing to sue over a “complete loss of their First Amendment freedom to protest and report news at the Portland ICE Building,” a “legal injury” that “recurs daily.”

“Defendants and their agents, employees, and all persons acting under their direction or in active concert or participation with them […] are hereby prohibited and enjoined from engaging in or directing or encouraging others” to use various “chemical or projectile munitions” 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,” Simon said.

The judge additionally stated that federal officers can’t fire “any munitions or use any weapons” at protesters heads or upper bodies generally unless officers are “legally justified in using deadly force against that person.”

While DHS has reportedly defended its actions as “appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters,” Simon was troubled that DHS higher-ups have “publicly condoned” violence against protesters rather than condemning it.

Read the opinion in full here.