People use their phones to record as they argue with federal agents at an intersection in the Cicero neighborhood during an immigration raid, after U.S. President Donald Trump ordered increased federal law enforcement presence to assist in crime prevention, in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., October 22, 2025. REUTERS/Jim Vondruska

By Diana Novak Jones

CHICAGO (Reuters) -A federal judge in Chicago on Thursday said immigration officials had lied about the nature of local protests against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the city, and ordered agents to restrict their use of tear gas and other anti-riot weapons in the area.

At a hearing, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said she did not find government witnesses' allegations about violence at the protests in the country’s third-largest city to be credible, and cited several incidents where she said body camera video and other recordings directly contradicted what immigration officials said happened. She granted a request from a group of protesters, journalists and clergy members for a preliminary injunction restricting federal immigration agents’ use of force against them.

After having heard hours of testimony on Wednesday about incidents all over the city where agents used tear gas and pepper balls on protesters, journalists and clergy, Ellis agreed that the agents’ actions were chilling the plaintiffs' rights to free speech, free assembly and religious freedom in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Border Patrol commander-at-large Gregory Bovino, who is spearheading the immigration operation in Chicago, admitted during a deposition in the case that he lied about being hit with a rock before he threw tear gas at a crowd protesting in a predominantly Mexican neighborhood in October when he was actually hit afterwards, Ellis said.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said agents are faced with violence from "rioters, gangbangers and terrorists."

"Despite these real dangers, our law enforcement shows incredible restraint in exhausting all options before force is escalated," the spokesperson said and noted the government would appeal. "This injunction is an extreme act by an activist judge that risks the lives and livelihoods of law enforcement officers."

Ellis said the Chicago she sees is neighbors looking out for the most vulnerable in their communities.

"The government would have people believe instead that the Chicagoland area is in a visehold of violence, ransacked by rioters, and attacked by agitators," she said. "That simply is untrue."

President Donald Trump, a Republican, has made Chicago a focus of his aggressive immigration enforcement since early September. Under Bovino's leadership in “Operation Midway Blitz,” federal agents have used tear gas in residential areas and forcibly subdued protesters while attempting to arrest people suspected of being in the country illegally, drawing criticism and legal scrutiny.

BODY CAMERAS

In her order, which remains in effect while the case proceeds, Ellis prohibited the use of anti-riot weapons against protesters unless there is a threat of imminent harm and directed immigration officials not to disperse, arrest or threaten journalists. She directed immigration agents to wear body cameras and clear identification. The order follows a similar temporary restraining order she issued last month, which expired today.

Ellis had previously raised concerns that federal agents appeared to be violating her earlier order and had summoned Bovino to testify daily before her, but a U.S. appeals court later overturned that directive, ruling she had overstepped her role.

At a lengthy hearing on Wednesday, the plaintiffs spoke about violence they experienced during protests outside an immigration detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, and on residential streets in Chicago. Multiple people testified that agents had aimed guns at their heads after they filmed their activity, and a pastor spoke about being shot in the face with a pepper ball while praying.

U.S. Justice Department attorney Sarmad Khojasteh argued that in every instance, federal agents were justified in using force to respond to violence during the protests, which the government characterized as riots. He told the court that the protesters’ actions did not constitute protected speech, and noted that all the witnesses said they continued to protest despite their experiences.

Ellis pushed back on that argument on Wednesday, saying what mattered was whether they felt fear or apprehension before they went to protest. “The fact that people can be courageous is utterly irrelevant as to whether there was a chilling effect.”

(Reporting by Diana Novak Jones; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Diane Craft)