People march to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in honor of victims of ICE shootings Friday, Jan. 9, 2026, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane).
A group of “peaceful protesters” in Portland, Oregon, is asking a federal judge to bar the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from using “excessive force” against them in the vicinity of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) headquarters in the city.
In their 41-page filing on Tuesday, the individuals cite the department”s “escalating pattern of unnecessary, excessive and indiscriminate violence against protesters at this site” as reason a temporary restraining order (TRO) must be issued. As they tell it, the federal government is violating their First Amendment rights by “retaliating against people” for their anti-ICE speech while allowing pro-ICE counter-protesters to operate with impunity.
“On the facts of this case, not only is there a risk that police will use their arrest power to suppress speech, but there is strong evidence that they are using their broad discretion to do just that with respect to only disfavored speech,” the filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon reads. “It is hard to imagine DHS’s pattern of misuse of weapons as anything other than an attempt to punish the crowd for their expression.”
At least 12 anti-ICE protesters and their stories are included in the motion, including a man allegedly repeatedly injured from chemical munitions shot by DHS agents, such as those shot from the roof of the building, an 84-year-old woman shot with a munition in her temple, and her husband — a Vietnam War veteran — who, like his wife, “no longer feels safe attending protests” where federal officers could perpetrate violence against them.
It is their right to peacefully protest, the plaintiffs maintain, but the “gratuitous violence” from federal agents is depriving them of this, and DHS also poses a risk that officers “will needlessly kill or maim someone, as they have done repeatedly within the last few 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.”
