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 protesters during ongoing unrest.
Bovino, speaking on national television, insisted that agents reserve tear gas for those who “cross the line” into violence, emphasizing that it’s never been deployed against peaceful demonstrators. He argued the use of “less lethal munitions” is crucial for the safety of both officers and the public, while simultaneously upholding the right to protest.
The commander’s statements directly followed a ruling by a Minnesota federal judge that barred federal officers from using tear gas against peaceful protesters participating in Operation Metro Surge. The judge’s order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota on behalf of six activists.
The court specifically prohibited federal agents from detaining or deploying tear gas against individuals peacefully protesting or observing law enforcement activities, requiring probable cause for any intervention. Simply following officers “at an appropriate distance” does not justify a stop or the use of force, the ruling stated.
Tensions in Minneapolis are already heightened following the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by an ICE agent earlier this month during an immigration enforcement operation. The judge’s ruling acknowledged a perceived escalation in federal immigration crackdowns within the state, noting no indication of the operation slowing down.
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 will comply with the order to ensure public safety.
Minnesota’s Attorney General praised the ruling as a significant victory for the constitutional right to peaceful protest and observation. He thanked the ACLU and the plaintiffs for their unwavering defense of this fundamental freedom.
The Department of Homeland Security responded to the ruling by asserting that the First Amendment does not shield “rioting.” A DHS assistant secretary stated the department is taking “appropriate and constitutional measures” to maintain order and protect officers and the public.
DHS officials detailed instances of alleged violence directed at law enforcement, including assaults, fireworks, tire slashing, and vandalism of federal property. They maintain that agents have consistently adhered to training protocols, employing only the minimum force necessary to protect themselves and others.
