CHICAGO (AP) — A federal judge said Thursday she will order federal agents in Chicago to restrict using force against peaceful protesters and news media outlets, saying current practices violate their constitutional rights.
The preliminary injunction came in response to a lawsuit alleging federal agents have used excessive force in their immigration crackdown in the Chicago area.
U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis's ruling, which is expected to be appealed by President Donald Trump’s administration, refines an earlier temporary order that required agents to wear badges and banned them from using certain riot-control techniques, such as tear gas, against peaceful protesters and journalists. Following repeated issues with adherence to previous orders, she also mandated body cameras.
Ellis began the hearing by portraying Chicago as a vibrant place and quote poet Carl Sandburg, expressing that the city is no center of violence as painted by some narratives. Prior engagements, like a recent chaotic event where a Border Patrol commander reportedly threw a tear gas canister into a crowd, sparked this legal confrontation.
Throughout the proceedings, Ellis stated, I don’t find defendants’ version of events credible, as she emphasized the need for restraint.
As part of the injunction, agents must issue two warnings before deploying riot control methods and will only be allowed to use force when it's objectively necessary to stop an immediate threat. She highlighted the chilling effect of the current practices over individuals exercising their rights.
Ellis pointed to testimonies from protestors facing severe responses such as tear gas and physical intimidation as a strong factor necessitating judicial intervention.
The preliminary injunction origins stem from a lawsuit lodged by news organizations and demonstrators asserting misuse of force by agents amidst protests. One federal attorney noted that compliance with the body-worn camera directive was being addressed, having recorded extensive deposition sessions with senior officials defending their actions.
Finally, as witnesses narrated distressing anecdotes from protests, their fears about future involvement in advocacy surfaced, reflecting significant psychological impacts stemming from these confrontations.
