Protecting protesters and the press from unconstitutional federal force in Illinois

Chicago Headline Club v. Noem

On October 6, 2025, a coalition of media organizations, clergy, and private citizens filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and federal agencies for violating their First Amendment rights in the Chicago area. The lawsuit argues that federal agents have used brutal and illegal force to suppress peaceful and constitutionally protected activities.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs also filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), asking a federal court for an immediate order to stop the government’s violent suppression of free speech. On October 9, Judge Sara L. Ellis granted a TRO, temporarily enjoining federal agents operating in the Northern District of Illinois from utilizing physical force, riot control weapons, or otherwise harmful and undue dispersal techniques against lawful protestors. 

“The actions taken by some federal agents, at this point, clearly violate the constitution. Individuals are allowed to protest, are allowed to speak — that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of our Constitution, and it is a bedrock right that upholds our democracy.”

On November 6, after hearing testimony from plaintiffs and the government and reviewing many hours of video from protestors’ interactions with federal agents, the court entered a preliminary injunction in line with her TRO, specifically concluding that Defendants lied about their conduct:

“[D]efendants would have people believe instead that the Chicagoland area is in a vise hold of violence, ransacked by rioters, and attacked by agitators – which justifies the unprecedented swath of indiscriminate uses of force unleashed on journalists, peaceful protestors, and religious practitioners. That narrative simply is untrue. And, as noted in multiple instances throughout this Opinion, Defendants’ own evidence in this case belies that assertion.”

“After reviewing all the evidence submitted to the Court and listening to the testimony elicited at the preliminary injunction hearing, during depositions, and in other court proceedings, the Court finds Defendants’ evidence simply not credible. . . . While Defendants may argue that the Court identifies only minor inconsistencies, every minor inconsistency adds up, and at some point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything that Defendants represent.”

“Turning to Bovino, the Court specifically finds his testimony not credible. Bovino appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing “cute” responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions or outright lying. When shown a video of agents hitting Rev. Black with pepper balls, Bovino denied seeing a projectile hit Rev. Black in the head. Doc. 191-3 at 162:21–165:17; Doc. 22-44 (Ex. 44 at 0:10–12, available here). In another video shown to Bovino, he obviously tackles Scott Blackburn, one of Plaintiffs’ declarants. Doc. 191-3 at 172:13–173:7; Doc. 22-45 (Ex. 45 at 0:19–30, available here). But instead of admitting to using force against Blackburn, Bovino denied it and instead stated that force was used against him. Doc. 191-3 at 173:9–176:11, 179:11–181:5.”

“Most tellingly, Bovino admitted in his deposition that he lied multiple times about the events that occurred in Little Village that prompted him to throw tear gas at protesters. As discussed further below, Bovino and DHS have represented that a rock hit Bovino in the helmet before he threw tear gas. See Doc. 190-1 at 1; Homeland Security (@DHSgov), X (Oct. 28, 2025 9:56 a.m.),. Bovino was asked about this during his deposition, which took place over three days. On the first day, Bovino admitted that he was not hit with a rock until after he had deployed tear gas. Doc. 191-3 at 222:24–223:18. Bovino then offered a new justification for his use of chemical munitions, testifying that he only threw tear gas after he “had received a projectile, a rock,” which “almost hit” him. Doc. 191-3 at 222:24–223:18. Despite being presented with video evidence that did not show a rock thrown at him before he launched the first tear gas canister, Bovino nonetheless maintained his testimony throughout the first and second days of his deposition, id. at 225–27; Doc. 237 at 11–17. But on November 4, 2025, the final session of his deposition, Bovino admitted that he was again “mistaken” and that no rock was thrown at him before he deployed the first tear gas canister. Doc. 238 at 9:12–21 (“That white rock was . . . thrown at me, but that was after . . . I deployed less lethal means in chemical munitions.”); id. at 10:20–23 (Q. [Y]ou deployed the canisters, plural, before that black rock came along and you say hit you in the head, correct? A. Yes. Before the rock hit me in the head, yes.”).”

The government has appealed the decision, and the Seventh Circuit has stayed the injunction pending the appeal.

The coalition is represented by attorneys from Protect Democracy, Loevy + Loevy, the Community Justice and Civil Rights Clinic at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic of the University of Chicago School of Law, First Defense Legal Aid, and the ACLU of Illinois.

Background

Background

Over the summer of 2025, the Trump Administration deployed federal forces to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing center in Broadview, IL. In recent weeks, federal agents have used intentional and escalating violence to brutally suppress free speech. 

These tactics include the dangerous and indiscriminate use of near-lethal weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper-balls, and flash grenades against peaceful protesters, journalists, and clergy. The complaint argues this is a blatant attempt by the federal government to interfere with the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly.

A federal court in Los Angeles recently granted an emergency order in a similar case, concluding that “federal agents’ indiscriminate use of force…will undoubtedly chill the media’s efforts to cover these public events and protestors seeking to express peacefully their views on national policies.”

The lawsuit seeks to:

• Declare the violent tactics used by federal agents to suppress protected speech unconstitutional and unlawful.
• Hold unlawful and set aside the government’s policy of using force to intimidate and silence protesters and the press.
• Issue an injunction stopping the federal government’s illegal suppression of First Amendment activities.

This case is about ensuring the government cannot use violence to silence those who disagree with it. The case, Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

• Media Organizations and Journalists: Block Club Chicago, Chicago Headline Club, the Chicago Newspaper Guild Local 34071, the National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians Local 54041, and individual journalists.
• Clergy: Pastor David Black of the First Presbyterian Church of Chicago was shot seven times in the head and torso with projectiles containing a chemical agent while he was in a traditional posture of prayer.
• Individual Protesters: William Paulson, a 67-year-old retired union painter with emphysema and COPD, was gassed and disoriented by flash grenades during an indiscriminate attack by ICE agents, causing him to fall to his hands and knees and vomit from the pain and inability to breathe.

Defendants

Defendants

• President Donald J. Trump
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem
• Acting Director of ICE Todd Lyons
• Acting Executive Associate Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Marcos Charles
• ICE Chicago Field Office Director Sam Olson
• Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Gregory Bovino
• Attorney General of the United States Pam Bondi
• Individual agents of ICE, CBP, DHS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the Department of Justice

Case Documents and Exhibits

Case Documents and Exhibits

You can also view video and additional documents on Loevy + Loevy’s page on the case.