Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield backs lawsuit challenging federal force used during protests outside Portland ICE facility

State filing adds pressure as federal court weighs longer-term limits on crowd-control tactics

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has formally backed a federal lawsuit challenging the use of chemical agents and “less-lethal” munitions by federal officers during protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland. The state’s filing supports protesters and journalists seeking court-ordered limits on federal tactics that they say were used against people who posed no immediate threat.

The dispute centers on repeated demonstrations at the ICE building near South Macadam Avenue and Bancroft Street, where federal officers have deployed tear gas and other munitions in response to crowd activity. Witness accounts submitted to the court describe panic and impaired breathing and vision as chemical agents spread through dense groups, including during the weekend of Jan. 31, 2026.

Temporary restraining order sets “imminent threat” threshold

On Feb. 3, 2026, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) limiting when federal officers may use chemical agents or projectile munitions at the ICE facility. The order bars such weapons against people who do not pose an imminent threat of physical harm, and it also restricts officers from firing projectiles at the head, neck, or torso unless the legal standard for deadly force is met.

The TRO is time-limited. The next phase in the case is a court decision on whether to issue a preliminary injunction, which would impose longer-lasting restrictions while litigation continues. A multi-day hearing is scheduled to begin March 2, 2026.

What the lawsuit alleges—and how the federal government responds

The underlying lawsuit, filed in November 2025, is structured as a proposed class action on behalf of protesters and members of the press. It alleges that federal officers used force in a way that unlawfully chilled protected speech and newsgathering and that the tactics were employed beyond what crowd conditions required.

Federal authorities have argued in court filings in related litigation that crowd-control munitions are used in response to unlawful conduct or threats, and that dispersal efforts can have incidental effects beyond the immediate area of confrontation.

Separate case highlights effects on nearby residents

A second lawsuit, filed by residents of the Gray’s Landing affordable housing complex located near the ICE facility, seeks restrictions on chemical agents on the grounds that repeated deployments have affected people inside their homes. Residents have described ongoing exposure over months, including impacts on older adults, children, and people with disabilities.

• Key legal question: whether federal crowd-control tactics are narrowly tied to immediate threats, or used more broadly in ways that violate constitutional protections.

• Immediate next step: a March 2026 hearing on a preliminary injunction that could extend or expand limits beyond the short-term TRO.

The case now turns on whether the court finds a sustained need for strict limits on federal force while the broader constitutional claims are litigated.