Attorneys Urge Injunction On Use Of Force Against Protesters (1)

As the clock ticked toward the expiration of a temporary order governing federal agents’ use of force against Chicago protesters, a federal judge drew a distinction between courage against the threat of injury and evidence of a chilling effect on free speech.

Judge Sara Ellis interrupted the government’s closing argument Wednesday evening to note that the protesters testified they “have to think twice” about protesting because they continue to be injured by federal agents.

“If they are making changes to what they do because they have been tear-gassed, because they have been hit in the head with a pepper ball twice, because they have been staring down the barrel of a gun, then that is what matters,” she said. “The fact that people can be courageous is utterly irrelevant as to whether there was a chilling effect.”

Ellis, of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, said she will rule Thursday morning on whether to impose a preliminary injunction to supersede the temporary restraining order, which expires at 11:30 a.m.

The daylong hearing featured a barrage of testimony from demonstrators, including two clergymen, who repeatedly testified they were injured or threatened by federal agents while peacefully protesting.

Attorneys also played clips of a recent deposition from Gregory Bovino, a top Border Patrol official overseeing “Operation Midway Blitz,” during which he said agents’ use of force has been “more than exemplary.” He pushed against a video showing him hop a barrier to bring a demonstrator down to the ground.

“The use of force was against me,” rather than the protester, he said in the deposition.

A ‘Brutal’ Campaign

As a slideshow displayed images now infamous around Chicago—such as a man with a baby carrier running from a cloud of tear gas—plaintiff attorney Craig Futterman said the case is about “retaliating against people because the defendants don’t like what they have to say.”

He called the agents’ campaign “brutal,” in his opening statements.

“You want to talk about irreparable harm? You have children, parents and grandparents who will forever be afraid to exercise the very rights and freedoms that make this country great,” said Futterman, of the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic.

In response, Trump administration attorneys said agents’ response to “violent protesters” has been entirely appropriate. Sarmad Khojasteh of the US Department of Justice urged the judge to reject the idea that “the First Amendment sanitizes conduct that federal law enforcement agents have encountered repeatedly.”

The plaintiffs are the ones engaging in viewpoint discrimination by arguing that “plainly violent conduct is lawful, but response by federal law enforcement agents seeking to protect themselves is unlawful—for no reason other than plaintiffs disagree with Trump administration policies,” Khojasteh said. “That position cannot stand.”

Plaintiffs presented a slew of witnesses who repeatedly said they saw no violence from demonstrators. It was federal officers who employed tear gas, flash-bangs, and pepper balls without warning, they said.

“I observed federal agents launching projectiles from the corner of the roof, at the people who were unarmed and were not violent in any way,” said Father Brendan Curran, a Catholic priest who has repeatedly attended gatherings at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in suburban Broadview.

Chicago City Council member Julia Ramirez, who is pregnant, testified she was present when the Brighton Park neighborhood was tear-gassed last month.

“It was scary, people running from the scene really distressed, people crying, kids on the scene as well. People trying to clear their face and their eyes,” she said. “Pretty terrifying.”

Plaintiffs are also represented by Loevy & Loevy, Protect Democracy Project, First Defense Legal Aid, Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, and the Roger Baldwin Foundation.

The case is Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, N.D. Ill., No. 1:25-cv-12173, hearing 11/5/25.