Federal Judge Imposes Limits on Tear Gas, Crowd Control in Illinois as Protests Escalate

A federal judge has issued a sweeping temporary order restricting law enforcement’s use of tear gas and other riot-control measures against protesters in Illinois, a ruling that underscores mounting scrutiny over federal tactics during unrest. Judge Sara Ellis, appointed by President Obama to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, directed agencies to sharply curtail crowd dispersal efforts unless absolutely necessary for safety.

Under the court’s order, federal forces may not deploy crowd-control munitions—such as tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and less-lethal shotgun rounds—unless they can demonstrate the presence of “exigent circumstances” posing an immediate threat of bodily harm. Officers are also required to issue at least two verbal warnings before using force, and must allow sufficient time for compliance.

Furthermore, the judge prohibited law enforcement personnel from shoving or tackling protesters to the ground, unless those individuals pose a direct danger to others or are subject to lawful arrest.

Case Brought by Journalists

This judicial intervention stemmed from a lawsuit filed by journalists who claimed they had been handled aggressively by federal officers during protests targeting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Chicago area. Their complaints alleged violations of press protections and excessive use of force, prompting the judge’s decision to curb aggressive tactics.

The Justice Department objected to the ruling, contending that federal agents require discretion to react swiftly in volatile situations. They argued that rigid rules could imperil officers’ ability to respond to fast-moving threats.

The ruling arrived the same week another federal judge—also appointed by President Biden—temporarily blocked former President Trump’s plan to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to defend federal buildings. Judge April Perry issued a pause on the deployment pending further hearings.

Legal Clash Over National Guard Deployment

That ruling followed a lawsuit from Illinois state and city officials challenging moves to send National Guard troops to protect federal facilities. The lawsuit came amid weeks of intensifying protests outside ICE installations. The officials argued that deploying troops across state lines to police civilian protests raised constitutional and jurisdictional issues.

Governor J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, has faced criticism for his outspoken rhetoric and for encouraging protests in response to federal actions. Earlier this year, he said, “Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now,” and accused Republicans of attempting to preside over an “invasion of Illinois” through federal enforcement.

In a public statement, Pritzker criticized the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement, declaring, “Donald Trump is not a king — and his administration is not above the law.” He welcomed the judge’s ruling and said it reinforced that there is “no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois,” and no justification for the National Guard to occupy the streets of Chicago.

Fierce Rebuttal From Trump’s Circle

Supporters of aggressive federal policing, however, attacked the governor and the ruling. Trump adviser Stephen Miller accused Pritzker of fomenting radicalism by opposing ICE operations in Chicago. He claimed the governor was effectively encouraging violence against agents performing their duties.

Regarding Judge Perry’s ruling blocking the National Guard deployment, Miller posted on social media:

“Federal judge: protecting ICE officers from violent attack will only further motivate the violent attackers.”

In turn, he criticized Pritzker for suggesting that ICE presence itself constitutes incitement.

On-the-Ground Developments

Despite the legal wrangling, law enforcement continued to make arrests. On Friday, Illinois State Police officers were stationed outside the ICE facility in Broadview, where violent protesters attempted to breach police lines protecting federal property. Those who tried were arrested, even as the court’s new limitations on dispersal were in effect.

Law enforcement agencies face a delicate balance between protecting property and enforcing order, on the one hand, and navigating new judicial limits on aggressive measures.

What This Means Going Forward

The court’s temporary restraining order marks a significant check on how far federal authorities may go in responding to protests. By establishing clearer rules on when force is permissible, and demanding warnings and time for compliance, the ruling raises the bar for justifying force.

But the order is provisional. Federal agencies and departments are likely to challenge it in appeals or seek modifications. The Justice Department has already flagged concerns about constraining rapid-response capacity.

The broader debate plays out amid a volatile political environment, with tensions over immigration, federal authority, and state sovereignty all entwined. As protests persist and legal battles multiply, the rulings in Illinois may set precedents for how far the federal government can go—both in doctrine and in practice—when responding to civil unrest.