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, speaking on national television, asserted that agents reserve the right to deploy “less lethal munitions” when protesters “cross the line” into violence. He emphasized a distinction between peaceful demonstrators – whom he stated agents do not target with tear gas – and those engaging in disruptive or aggressive behavior.
The commander’s statements followed a significant legal setback for federal authorities. A Minnesota federal judge issued a ruling Friday prohibiting federal officers involved in Operation Metro Surge from deploying tear gas against peaceful protesters, or detaining them without justification.
The judge’s order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota on behalf of six activists. It explicitly forbids retaliation against peaceful protesters and requires federal agents to demonstrate probable cause before taking action against individuals.
The ruling detailed that simply observing officers “at an appropriate distance” does not constitute reasonable suspicion for intervention. It also restricts the use of pepper spray and other crowd-dispersal tools against those engaged in peaceful protest.
This legal challenge unfolded against a backdrop of escalating tensions in Minneapolis, fueled by the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by an ICE agent during an immigration enforcement operation earlier this month. The judge noted a concerning trend of escalating federal activity in the state.
Minneapolis city officials welcomed the court’s decision, urging residents to remain “peaceful and lawful” in their interactions with immigration agents. They expressed expectations that the federal administration would comply with the order to ensure public safety.
Minnesota’s Attorney General echoed this sentiment, calling the ruling a crucial victory for the constitutional right to peaceful protest. He praised 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 maintained that the department is taking “appropriate and constitutional measures” to uphold the law and protect both officers and the public.
The DHS statement detailed instances of alleged violence directed at law enforcement, including assaults, fireworks, tire slashing, and vandalism of federal property. Officials reiterated that agents are adhering to training protocols and employing only the minimum force necessary to maintain order and protect themselves.
