A newly released court filing alleges that senior federal immigration officials instructed officers to arrest protesters simply for criticizing ongoing deportation operations in Chicago, raising new concerns about free speech and excessive force.
The filing cites sworn testimony from U.S. Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino, who reportedly admitted that he told officers to arrest demonstrators “who make hyperbolic comments in the heat of political demonstrations.” Attorneys representing several Chicago-based media organizations said Bovino’s statement was made during a deposition in their lawsuit seeking to restrict federal immigration agents’ use of force against protesters, journalists, and clergy.
The lawsuit is being heard by U.S. District Court Judge Sara Ellis. The plaintiffs include the Chicago Headline Club, Block Club Chicago, and the Chicago Newspaper Guild. They argue that agents under the Department of Homeland Security have repeatedly violated court orders and constitutional protections during “Operation Midway Blitz,” a mass deportation campaign launched under President Donald Trump.
According to the filing, ICE Chicago Field Director Russell Hott also said during his deposition that he did not agree that it would be “unconstitutional to arrest people” simply for expressing opposition to his agency’s current deportation operation.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote that “by Bovino’s logic, anyone who shows up to protest is presumptively violent or assaultive and he can ‘go hard’ against them.” They added that Bovino “would not admit he has ever seen protesters who were not violent rioters.”
The same filing alleges that Bovino said he has “interacted with many violent rioters and individuals” at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, Illinois, but could not remember encountering any peaceful demonstrators. According to the plaintiffs’ summary, Bovino “admitted [he] did not know ‘what they are,’” referring to nonviolent protesters.
In addition to the statements about speech-based arrests, attorneys said Bovino testified that he “tossed the first canister of gas before being hit by a rock” during a protest in Little Village. Federal officials said he deployed gas only after facing a “hostile” crowd, while plaintiffs argued that he used tear gas “in the absence of any threat and without warning.”
The filing says lawyers for both sides have struggled through a contentious deposition process. A government attorney said he felt “sandbagged,” while the plaintiffs’ team complained of a “substantial amount of obstruction.” Despite the tension, Bovino’s five-hour deposition continued at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse, and his testimony is expected to resume.
Judge Ellis has already imposed temporary limits on federal force in Chicago. Her existing order prohibits officers from using riot control weapons “on members of the press, protestors, or religious practitioners who are not posing an immediate threat to the safety of a law enforcement officer or others.” The order also requires two warnings before deploying tear gas or other munitions. A hearing on whether to make those restrictions permanent is scheduled for Nov. 5.
Justice Department lawyers have defended the actions of federal agents. They told Judge Ellis “the record will ultimately show that the gas is being used to enable agents to meet safely in highly volatile situations.” Plaintiffs argue that such statements justify violence against civilians and violate the constitutional rights of peaceful protesters.
Legal experts say the sworn statements highlight a troubling disregard for free speech. Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the testimony reflected a dangerous misunderstanding of constitutional law. “It’s impossible to overstate how much of what ICE is doing on the ground reflects this completely preposterous conflation of hostile speech and hostile conduct,” he wrote. “The First Amendment protects—or, at least, is supposed to protect—the former up and until it’s a ‘true threat,’ which none of this is.”
The Chicago lawsuit follows weeks of escalating force by federal agents. In recent incidents around the city, officers have been accused of attacking a journalist and a protesting priest with pepper balls outside an ICE facility, slamming a congressional candidate to the ground, dragging U.S. citizens including children from their homes during a night raid, and fatally shooting a man during a traffic stop.
Plaintiffs argue that the same mindset seen in Bovino’s testimony fuels those actions. “Without [a preliminary injunction], they say the feds ‘will continue to act as if they can use weapons of war to commit shocking acts of violence against civilians—protesters, press, clergy, bystanders, pregnant women, children—with impunity,’” the filing states.
The federal government continues to defend its authority to maintain order under Operation Midway Blitz. Homeland Security officials argue that agents are operating in “highly volatile situations” and that their actions are necessary to protect safety.
For civil rights attorneys, the case represents a test of constitutional limits on law enforcement power. If the claims in the filing are confirmed, they argue, the government has effectively criminalized protest itself.
The Nov. 5 hearing will determine whether the temporary limits on force remain in place or are expanded into a permanent court order.
COMMENTS