A contingent of demonstrators in Portland, Oregon, has approached a federal judge with a request to prevent the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from employing what they describe as “excessive force” against them near the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) headquarters in the city.

In a comprehensive 41-page legal document submitted on Tuesday, the protesters argue that the department has engaged in an “escalating pattern of unnecessary, excessive, and indiscriminate violence against demonstrators at this location,” prompting their call for a temporary restraining order (TRO). They assert that the federal authorities are infringing on their First Amendment rights by “retaliating against individuals” for their anti-ICE protests while permitting pro-ICE supporters to act without consequences.

The filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon highlights their concern, stating, “Based on the facts of this case, not only is there a danger that law enforcement will misuse their authority to suppress speech, but ample evidence suggests they are selectively targeting only the speech they disfavor.” The document further suggests that DHS’s repeated misuse of force appears to be a deliberate effort to penalize the crowd for their expressions.

The motion includes accounts from at least a dozen anti-ICE protesters, including one individual who claims to have been repeatedly injured by chemical munitions fired by DHS agents, sometimes from the rooftop. Among those mentioned are an 84-year-old woman who was struck in the temple by a munition and her husband, a Vietnam War veteran, both of whom “no longer feel safe attending protests” due to potential violence from federal officers.

The plaintiffs assert their right to peaceful protest is being undermined by the “gratuitous violence” from federal agents. They caution that DHS poses a significant risk of unnecessarily injuring or even killing someone, as has allegedly occurred multiple times in recent weeks.

The anti-ICE protesters then paint a wider picture of the Trump administration’s conduct across the nation, noting that “protests are picking up in response to Defendants’ ongoing brutality.”

On Jan. 7, Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, Minnesota, leading to outrage over ICE tactics and appearing to be a flashpoint in how many U.S. citizens see the agency. Then, on Saturday, another ICE officer shot and killed Alex Pretti in the city. Neither of them appeared on video of the incidents to be posing any harm.

The Portland, Oregon, plaintiffs also mention anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles and Chicago being attacked by federal officers despite exhibiting nothing but nonviolence. The declarants use this context to try and illustrate how the officers’ behavior outside of the Portland ICE building is emblematic of a larger structural issue and arguing that the “repeated shooting of nonviolent protesters at the Portland ICE Building will likely keep recurring” save for a TRO.

“As is evidenced by repeated events in Portland and punctuated against the backdrop of nationwide events, we know Defendants’ violence is in no way isolated,” they write. “Likewise, statements of DHS officials and senior federal executives show that the characteristics and culture of the agency and its employees is to celebrate and prioritize violent responses over fair and diplomatic ones. Finally, Defendants have offered no assurances that the conduct will cease or change.”

The anti-ICE protesters in Portland cite former Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Gil Kerlikowske, who served under the Obama administration, as saying “DHS has shown a repeated pattern of excessive force against everyone present at the ICE Building, including Portland police officers.”

And the plaintiffs contend that there is no accountability for officers who act out of bounds, quoting leading federal officials like Vice President JD Vance as saying officers will have “absolute immunity” for actions taken in their official capacity such as when shooting at protesters.

The requested TRO is “limited,” as the filing states, because it would only apply to the area at or around the “ICE Building” and because protesters who trespass or do not obey “lawful commands” could still be arrested. Additionally “some uses of force” would be permitted “in the face of real and imminent harm to law enforcement or others.”

The plaintiffs allege that DHS’ behavior has been a “retaliatory” attempt to deter citizens from peacefully protesting and goes against the Constitution.

“Federal courts, including this one, have repeatedly understood that Defendants’ policing escalations threaten to undermine the foundations of our democracy,” the filing states. “Courts recognize that the administration, while targeting cities and states where citizens do not support its policies, has based its actions on hyperbole not supported by facts or law.”

“Federal courts serve as the guardians of First Amendment freedoms,” they go on. “Defendants’ hostility toward people in this country exercising their First Amendment rights is palpable. Unless enjoined, heavy-handed suppression of rights will continue.”