A high-ranking federal immigration official publicly declared his intention to continue utilizing tear gas in Minneapolis, despite a recent court order restricting its use. Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino defended the tactic, framing it as a necessary response to violent individuals within ongoing protests.
Bovino asserted that agents would only deploy tear gas against those who “cross the line” into violent behavior, emphasizing that they have never targeted peaceful demonstrators. He maintained that the use of “less lethal munitions” is crucial for the safety of both officers and the public, while simultaneously upholding the right to peaceful assembly.
The commander’s statements followed a significant ruling by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez, which barred federal officers involved in Operation Metro Surge from detaining or deploying tear gas against peaceful protesters. The ACLU of Minnesota, representing six activists, brought the case forward in December, arguing against the aggressive tactics.
Judge Menendez’s order specifically prohibits retaliation against peaceful protesters and observers, requiring federal agents to demonstrate probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before taking action. Simply following officers “at an appropriate distance” is not grounds for intervention, the ruling stated.
The legal challenge gained momentum following the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by an ICE agent during a federal immigration enforcement operation earlier this month. Judge Menendez noted a concerning escalation in the Department of Homeland Security’s activities within Minnesota, suggesting the operation was expanding rather than diminishing.
Minneapolis city officials welcomed the court’s decision, urging residents to remain “peaceful and lawful” in their interactions with immigration agents. They emphasized the expectation that the federal administration would comply with the order to ensure public safety.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison hailed the ruling as a victory for constitutional rights, thanking the ACLU and plaintiffs for their steadfast defense of the freedom to peacefully protest and observe law enforcement activities. He described the decision as a crucial win for all Minnesotans.
In response to the court order, a DHS Assistant Secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, argued that the First Amendment does not shield “rioting” and asserted that the department is taking “appropriate and constitutional measures” to maintain order and protect its officers. She characterized protesters as dangerous individuals who have engaged in assaults and vandalism.
McLaughlin insisted that law enforcement personnel have consistently adhered to their training, utilizing only the minimum force necessary to safeguard themselves, the public, and federal property. This statement directly countered the concerns raised by the ACLU and the judge’s ruling regarding the excessive use of force against peaceful demonstrators.
