By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Sign up for OPB’s “First Look” newsletter to receive a daily curated selection of the most crucial news and culture stories emanating from the Northwest. This concise daily briefing ensures readers remain informed about significant developments in the region. By subscribing, individuals gain immediate access to essential updates, making it a vital resource for staying abreast of Northwest affairs.
Read the original article here
For months, a persistent scene has unfolded outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Portland, Oregon. Federal law enforcement officers have repeatedly employed tear gas and other crowd control measures, ostensibly to keep protesters away from the property. This ongoing use of force, however, has not been confined to the immediate vicinity of the building; the dispersal agents have reportedly drifted into nearby apartments and businesses, affecting residents and workers alike. Furthermore, accounts suggest that these chemical irritants and other measures have been directed at nonviolent demonstrators who were simply exercising their constitutional rights.
Now, some of those who have endured these experiences are taking their grievances to court. A group of demonstrators has initiated legal action, planning to argue before U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon that the actions of federal officers have infringed upon their First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest. The core of their argument appears to center on the government’s justification for using such forceful tactics, particularly when faced with what they describe as peaceful or even nonviolent demonstrations.
In defense of their officers’ actions, the Department of Homeland Security has consistently issued public statements supporting the use of these crowd control methods. The Justice Department, which is representing the agency in court, has also put forth its stance. In legal filings, they are reportedly opposing any restrictions on the use of force, describing the area around the ICE building as being “frequently besieged by violent agitators and obstructive crowd.” A key point raised by the DOJ is that the First Amendment, while guaranteeing rights to free speech and protest, does not explicitly prohibit officers from using tear gas and other chemical irritants when a crowd becomes violent or disruptive.
This legal argument, however, strikes many as fundamentally flawed, particularly when considering the historical context of both the First Amendment and the weapons used. The First Amendment was ratified in 1791, long before tear gas was invented in 1912. The notion that a right guaranteed by the Constitution should be interpreted narrowly based on the absence of explicit mention of a technology developed centuries later is being challenged. It raises the question of whether the government can claim the authority to attack its own citizens with weapons that were unimaginable at the time the constitutional rights were enshrined.
Adding to the controversy surrounding the use of tear gas is its classification. Tear gas is officially categorized as a “riot control agent,” and it’s worth noting that it is strictly prohibited as a method of warfare under international agreements like the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 and the Geneva Protocol of 1925. These international bans exist precisely because tear gas, while legal for domestic law enforcement, is recognized as a chemical weapon that can cause intense pain, burning sensations, and significant respiratory distress. The irony of using a substance banned on battlefields to quell domestic protests is not lost on many observers.
The strategy of escalating protests, followed by forceful dispersal with chemical agents and non-lethal munitions, and then resorting to legal defenses that emphasize the lack of explicit prohibitions, is becoming a pattern that raises serious concerns. It prompts reflection on historical parallels, where significant decisions and actions, perhaps initially justified, later became sources of deep regret. The question arises: at what point do individuals, or indeed governmental bodies, confront the consequences of their actions and acknowledge they may have been on the wrong side of history or fundamental rights?
Beyond the legal arguments, there are profound ethical and practical considerations. The repeated use of tear gas, even against protesters who are not actively engaged in violence, has led to documented instances of people being hit with these agents while simply exercising their constitutional rights. There are also disturbing accounts and videos that appear to show individuals already detained and on the ground being sprayed with tear gas at close range by ICE agents. Such actions, if accurate, would constitute aggravated assault against unarmed persons and underscore the urgency with which these matters need to be addressed and stopped.
The government’s current defense, suggesting that any power not explicitly denied by the Constitution is permissible, is viewed by some as a distortion of constitutional principles. Arguments are being made that the Ninth Amendment, which states that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, offer a counterpoint to such expansive interpretations of federal authority.
The effectiveness and legality of using tear gas in such a manner are also being questioned. While tear gas is a tool for crowd dispersal, its deployment can be indiscriminate, affecting peaceful bystanders as well as those considered disruptive. The comparison to modern water cannons, which are often seen as more contained, highlights the potential for tear gas to be an uncontrolled and harmful force when used in densely populated areas or against individuals with no means of escape. The very definition of “riot control” becomes blurred when peaceful assembly is met with chemical warfare agents.
Ultimately, this legal challenge in Portland represents a critical juncture. It forces a confrontation between the government’s assertion of its authority to maintain order and the fundamental rights of citizens to express their dissent. The outcome will likely have significant implications for the future of protest rights and the boundaries of law enforcement tactics in the United States. The hope is that the court will provide a clear and just resolution, upholding the spirit and intent of the Constitution in protecting these essential freedoms.