Appeals court lifts limits on ICE use of tear gas in Portland
Ninth Circuit ruled residents have no constitutional right to avoid exposure to chemical agents.
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made
Appeals court lifts limits on ICE use of tear gas in Portland
Photograph: The Gateway Pundit (embedded from source)
What this story says
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has overturned a preliminary injunction that limited the use of tear gas and other crowd-control weapons by ICE agents in Portland, Oregon.
- The court issued a 2-1 decision, finding that residents and protesters do not have a constitutional right to avoid exposure to chemical munitions.
- The ruling also rejected a requirement for federal officers to display larger identifying markings on their uniforms.
- The decision is seen as a legal victory for the Trump administration and the Department of Homeland Security.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 8 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 1 of the 9 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .
Trust
86/100
Craft
95/100
Hype
35/100
9 sources · methodology
Thin on the left so far
None of the 8 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated left.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has vacated a preliminary injunction that had restricted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents' use of tear gas and other crowd-control weapons near their facility in Portland, Oregon. The court also rejected a requirement for federal officers to display larger identifying markings on their uniforms.
The original injunction was imposed by an Obama-appointed district judge to limit the use of chemical munitions. Residents of the nearby Gray’s Landing apartment complex had argued that tear-gas exposure violated their civil liberties. However, the appeals court found that these residents do not possess a constitutional right to avoid such exposure.
Disagreement on constitutional rights
The Ninth Circuit's majority concluded that while peaceful protesters have constitutional protections, these do not extend to actions such as vandalizing federal property or obstructing law enforcement. The majority stated that agents "may use nonlethal force to clear crowds and restore order, they need not wait until they face ‘an imminent threat of physical harm.’" The court found that the district court had exceeded its permissible scope in restricting lawful crowd-control operations. In contrast, the plaintiffs, represented by groups like the ACLU of Oregon and Democracy Forward, expressed disappointment, stating the decision leaves residents without protections after repeated exposure to chemical munitions.
What the coverage left out
None of the centre or right-rated reports mention the Obama-appointed district judge by name, nor do they specify the date the preliminary injunction was initially imposed.
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 2 times, most recently on 11 Nov 2026, 04:45, and will add the sides that appear.
How other outlets pictured it
Which photograph to run is each newsroom’s own choice. The leaning beside a name is that outlet’s published rating, not a claim that the pictures divide along it. Every picture is shown from the outlet’s own server and links to the article it ran in.
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
0 rated outlets
No outlet rated left has run this story so far. We are still checking, and will say plainly if that does not change.
Centre
2 rated outlets
- The centre-rated report from OPB led with the appeals court ending a temporary ban on chemical weapons near the ICE facility. It stated that the panel of judges "spiked two temporary bans" on munitions use. The report noted that the decisions deal a legal blow to protesters and residents who sought to limit federal law enforcement's use of tear gas, pepper balls, and other chemicals. OPB reported that the appeals court wrote that neighbors "haven’t made a convincing argument that the Constitution protects them from exposure to tear gas when federal officers are using the munitions for crowd control."
Right
6 rated outlets
- Right-rated reports highlighted the ruling as a significant legal victory for the Trump administration and ICE. The Gateway Pundit's full report stated the Ninth Circuit "OVERTURNS Obama Judge’s Restrictions on ICE Agents Using Tear Gas Against Violent Portland Agitators, Says Federal Courts Cannot Handcuff Law Enforcement." It quoted Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, who wrote, "The First Amendment cannot be a sword to justify vandalism of federal buildings, criminal trespass of government property, or obstruction of law enforcement." Other right-rated outlets, including The Epoch Times, Washington Times, TrendingPolitics, News Addicts, and RedState, also focused on the overturning of judicial restrictions and the affirmation of federal enforcement methods. The Washington Times headline stated there is "No constitutional right protects nearby residents from ICE tear gas at Portland protests, court says."
Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover Appeals court lifts limits on ICE use of tear gas in Portland?
- Of the 8 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 0% are rated left, 25% are rated centre, 75% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 9. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is Appeals court lifts limits on ICE use of tear gas in Portland left or right?
- Too few of the outlets on this story carry a published leaning rating to say. 8 of them do, and this site does not characterise a field under 12: at that size one newsroom filing moves the share by ten points. The percentages above are the count as it stands.
- Is the coverage of Appeals court lifts limits on ICE use of tear gas in Portland biased?
- Appeals court lifts limits on ICE use of tear gas in Portland is one event reported by 9 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting Appeals court lifts limits on ICE use of tear gas in Portland?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated left had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered Appeals court lifts limits on ICE use of tear gas in Portland?
- 9 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- What did the Ninth Circuit rule regarding ICE agents in Portland?
- The Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 to vacate a preliminary injunction that had limited ICE agents' use of tear gas and other crowd-control weapons in Portland. The court also rejected a requirement for federal officers to display larger identifying markings on their uniforms.
- Do residents have a right to avoid tear gas exposure, according to the court?
- No, the appeals court found that residents of the nearby Gray’s Landing apartment complex do not have a constitutional right to avoid exposure to tear gas and other chemical munitions deployed by federal officers.
- What was the original injunction that was overturned?
- The original injunction was imposed by an Obama-appointed district judge to restrict the use of chemical munitions, such as tear gas, pepper balls, and flashbang grenades, near the ICE facility in Portland.
Read it at the source
9 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Centre
2Right
6- Ninth Circuit OVERTURNS Obama Judge’s Restrictions on ICE Agents Using Tear Gas Against Violent Portland Agitators — Says Federal Courts Cannot Handcuff Law Enforcement (opens The Gateway Pundit in a new tab)
The Gateway Pundit — is The Gateway Pundit biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Appeals Court Vacates Judicial Restrictions on DHS Use of Force Against Protest Crowds (opens The Epoch Times in a new tab)
The Epoch Times — is The Epoch Times biased? Our profile of this outlet
- No constitutional right protects nearby residents from ICE tear gas at Portland protests, court says (opens Washington Times in a new tab)
Washington Times — is Washington Times biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Significant Win for ICE as Appeals Court Upholds Enforcement Methods (opens News Addicts in a new tab)
News Addicts — is News Addicts biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Appeals Court Delivers Major Victory For ICE (opens TrendingPolitics in a new tab)
TrendingPolitics — is TrendingPolitics biased? Our profile of this outlet
- 9th Circuit Hands Trump Administration Two Wins in Portland ICE Protest Cases — With a Dobbs Twist (opens RedState in a new tab)
Not rated
1How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
