Appeals Court Says Tear Gas Can Still Be Used Outside Portland ICE Facility for Now
PORTLAND, Ore. — In a majority decision Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused lower court restrictions on the use of tear gas and other crowd-control weapons at Portland’s ICE facility while appeals continue.
Hold On Tear Gas Restriction at Portland ICE Extended
A three-judge federal Appeals Court panel voted 2-1 to continue blocking two lower court orders restricting federal officers’ use of tear gas and other munitions against protesters outside Portland’s federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement building. The ruling comes pending appeals in:
- A March 6 order by U.S. District Judge Amy Baggio restricted federal officers from deploying tear gas and other chemicals that could seep into the nearby Gray’s Landing apartment complex. Judge Baggio found that residents had a constitutional right to bodily integrity and to be free of exposure to chemicals deployed by federal officers.
- S. District Judge Michael H. Simon’s March 9 order bars the indiscriminate use of force against protesters and freelance journalists.
Sources: Ninth Circuit rulings, OPB and Democracy Forward
Dailytidings.com
The Appeals Court also blocked any further proceedings in the lower courts until the full appeals are heard.
Trump appointees Judges Eric C. Tung and Kenneth Kiyul Lee were in the majority in each ruling, while Judge Ana de Alba, a Biden appointee, dissented.
In the Grays’s Landing case, the majority overruled Baggio’s finding that residents of the complex and its owner had a constitutional right to “bodily integrity.”
The dissenting judge found the interests of the residents of the affordable housing complex outweighed those of the federal officers.
But the majority held that there is no such right as “bodily integrity.” It said there is no indication that the substantive-due-process right claimed is in constitutional text or structure, nor is it “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.”
They likened residents’ concerns to a neighborhood grievance and also found Baggio’s order “vague and unworkable.”
In Judge Simon’s case, the Court found the plaintiffs failed to show the federal government had a policy of retaliation in targeting them for their speech, and called the restrictions too broad. They said the Judge acted beyond his authority.