Federal appeals judges on Thursday refused to rehear a contentious legal challenge from Portland residents and housing advocates, effectively upholding a panel decision that allows federal law enforcement officers to use tear gas and other crowd?control weapons outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in South Portland without imposing new limits tied to nearby apartment buildings. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit comes at the conclusion of months of litigation and protest activity that has drawn national attention to the intersection of federal policing authority and civil liberties.

The lawsuits stem from demonstrations that have taken place since 2025 outside the federal ICE building, where protesters have assembled to decry immigration enforcement practices. Many of those protests have been peaceful, though federal agents have on numerous occasions responded with tear gas, pepper balls, and smoke grenades — tactics that, according to plaintiffs, have repeatedly drifted into a neighboring affordable housing complex called Gray’s Landing.

Residents of the complex testified in court that the pervasive use of chemical munitions had seeped into their homes, clinging to furniture and clothing and leaving tenants with health complaints such as wheezing, migraines, and hives. Some residents said they had resorted to sleeping in bathtubs or wearing gas masks at night to avoid exposure. The lawsuits argued that the federal government’s therapeutic use of “less?lethal” weapons in such proximity to residential areas was unlawful and a deprivation of constitutional rights.

In April, a three?judge panel at the Ninth Circuit overturned preliminary injunctive orders from two federal district court judges in Oregon that had imposed restrictions on federal officers’ use of tear gas and other crowd control weapons. Judges Eric Tung and Kenneth Lee, both appointed by former President Donald Trump, concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a legally cognizable right to be free from incidental exposure to chemicals released when federal agents deploy force, particularly when the government is attempting to control potentially volatile demonstrations. Judge Ana de Alba, a Biden appointee, dissented from the panel decision.

Following the panel’s April ruling, residents and lawyers representing Reach Community Development — the nonprofit that owns the Gray’s Landing complex — petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an en banc rehearing, seeking a full court review of the panel’s reasoning. That request was denied on Thursday, with the court’s notice stating that none of the judges agreed to revisit the decision. With the panel outcome affirmed, the earlier limitations imposed by the district courts remain vacated, leaving federal officers wide latitude to employ crowd control measures around the ICE facility without new procedural or substantive checks tied to nearby residents.

In its litigation filings, the federal government, represented by the Department of Justice, warned that restrictions on crowd control tools could jeopardize officers’ ability to manage large or unruly crowds and protect federal property and personnel. The government’s arguments framed the deployment of tear gas and similar munitions as necessary law enforcement tools rather than punitive or indiscriminate harm. In their briefs to the Ninth Circuit, Justice Department attorneys rebuffed claims that the federal response constituted unconstitutional conduct or created a public health hazard.

The broader national context includes similar legal confrontations over the use of “less?lethal” crowd control devices by federal agents. Appeals courts in other jurisdictions have responded to challenges to such orders, with some judges staying restrictions on use of force and others imposing temporary limits tied to imminent threats to officers. Legal observers note that appellate courts have generally been deferential to executive and law enforcement discretion in managing protests, particularly when arguments hinge on claims of operational need rather than specific statutory prohibitions.

Civil liberties advocates and local leaders in Portland have sharply criticized the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to rehear the case, describing it as a legal setback for residents and a broader disregard for health and safety concerns. They contend that the court’s ruling prioritizes federal authority over the lived experiences of neighbors who bear the brunt of chemical exposure and disruptive law enforcement activity.

“This decision effectively signals that neighbors living near federal facilities have no constitutional protection from the fallout of federal crowd control measures, even when those measures are repeatedly deployed and seep into their homes,” said a spokesperson for Democracy Forward, a Washington, D.C.?based nonprofit legal group that represented residents in the case. The group has indicated that it will continue to explore additional legal avenues.

Opposition to the ruling also played out on the ground outside the Portland ICE facility, where protests have continued at a lower frequency in recent months but remain a flashpoint for debate over immigration enforcement tactics. Some demonstrators have filed separate civil suits alleging that individual uses of force against protesters and journalists amount to retaliation for protected speech rather than legitimate crowd control, seeking damages for physical and emotional harm.

Meanwhile, federal agents have continued to assert that their actions are lawful responses to violence or threats, emphasizing that the presence of tear gas and pepper balls is tied to episodes of property damage or threats to officer safety. In the absence of judicial restrictions, federal officials maintain authority to deploy such measures when they judge them necessary, subject to internal Department of Homeland Security policies and federal law enforcement protocols.

The Ninth Circuit decision underscores the judiciary’s current approach to disputes over federal force deployment and may influence pending and future cases involving similar claims in other jurisdictions. Legal analysts say that while the ruling does not foreclose all avenues for relief, it does set a challenging precedent for residents and civil liberties groups seeking to limit the use of crowd control weapons based on health or residential proximity concerns. Critics warn that without legislative action or policy reforms, communities located near federal enforcement actions may find limited legal recourse under existing constitutional frameworks.