Portland tenants sue DHS and ICE, alleging tear gas drifts into homes and harms residents’ health

Lawsuit targets crowd-control tactics near South Waterfront housing

Residents of Gray’s Landing, an affordable housing complex in Portland’s South Waterfront, have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to restrict the use of tear gas and other chemical munitions deployed during protests near the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. The plaintiffs allege that chemical agents used outside the federal building repeatedly drift into their apartments, contaminating living spaces and triggering acute and ongoing health symptoms.

Gray’s Landing is located at 650 SW Lowell St. The ICE facility is nearby in the South Waterfront area, where demonstrations have drawn a continuing federal law-enforcement presence and periodic use of crowd-control measures.

What residents say is happening inside their apartments

The complaint describes episodes in which airborne chemicals enter homes through windows, vents, and gaps, leaving residents to manage exposure in spaces not designed for chemical incidents. The suit alleges that residue lingers on interior surfaces and household items, extending exposure beyond the moments when agents deploy munitions outside.

Residents describe symptoms that include breathing difficulty, burning sensations, headaches, and disorientation. The filing also describes children and other vulnerable residents taking protective measures such as sealing windows and retreating to interior areas of their homes during deployments, with some families reporting they avoid parts of their apartments when the air quality worsens.

What the plaintiffs are asking the court to do

The residents seek a preliminary injunction that would limit federal agents’ use of tear gas and similar chemical agents in a way that predictably reaches their homes. The requested restrictions would allow deployment only under narrow circumstances, centered on an imminent threat of physical harm.

The lawsuit names the federal government and agencies responsible for operations at the facility, and frames the dispute as both a public-health issue and a constitutional one, arguing residents should be able to safely occupy their homes regardless of nearby protest activity.

Federal response and the broader protest context

Federal officials have defended the use of force as a response to unlawful or violent activity during certain demonstrations, arguing that chemical drift into nearby areas does not, by itself, establish a legal violation when crowd-control tools are used in response to threats.

The case arrives amid heightened scrutiny of federal tactics at the Portland ICE facility. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Michael Simon issued a temporary restraining order limiting the use of chemical and projectile munitions against protesters unless there is an imminent threat of harm. That order was time-limited and the court has scheduled further proceedings to consider longer-lasting restrictions.

Key points at issue

• Whether federal agents can use chemical munitions near residential buildings when effects are foreseeable inside homes.
• How courts weigh public safety, protest activity, and residents’ health and housing security.
• Whether interim restrictions on crowd-control tools should be broadened beyond protester-focused protections to include nearby tenants.

The litigation seeks to establish enforceable limits on chemical-munitions use where residential exposure is predictable, while the government argues force is tied to operational needs during certain demonstrations.

The court’s next decisions will determine whether the requested injunction takes effect while the underlying claims proceed.