Dickinson v. Trump

The ACLU of Oregon, partner law firms, and their protester and journalist clients meet the Trump Administration in federal court to challenge the Trump Administration’s pattern of First Amendment violations at the Portland ICE Building. Partner law firms include Singleton Schreiber LLP, Albies & Stark, the People’s Law Project, and BraunHagey & Borden LLP.

In November 2025, the ACLU of Oregon and partner law firms filed a class-action lawsuit, “Dickinson v. Trump”, on behalf of protesters and journalists in Portland to stop the Trump Administration' s retaliatory violence against them that has been a sustained feature of the federal officers’ activities at the Portland ICE building. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of Portlanders including “the Portland Chicken”, an elderly couple, veterans, and journalists.

Following an escalation in First Amendment violations in January, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order in Dickinson (a.k.a. "the Portland Chicken") v. Trump requested by plaintiffs. The order prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers from using crowd control munitions, including pepper balls and tear gas, in retaliation against people for nonviolently protesting DHS violence and reporting on it at the Portland ICE Building.

Below are highlights from the preliminary injunction hearing before Judge Michael H. Simon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

Oral Arguments in Ninth Circuit Court

• The Government shared its arguments that the injunction prohibiting the use of retaliatory force against protesters and press should be paused and/or deemed overbroad while they pursue an appeal of the injunction. In doing so, the Government likened the case to one called “Puente” that arose out of a one-day protest in Phoenix in 2017 outside a Trump rally at the Phoenix Convention Center.
• Kimberly Hutchison of Singleton Schreiber LLP shared arguments pointing to the extensive factual record showing that unlike any single protest, this case reveals a systemic pattern of excessive force that is praised by DHS leadership and repeatedly left uncorrected and unaddressed by supervisors. Ms. Hutchison also described how the injunction largely requires the Government to follow its own policies that were created for these very types of protest events.
• The Government provided a brief rebuttal and asked the panel to pause the entirety of the multi-claim case proceedings in the District Court until the appeal concludes.
• The parties now wait for a decision from the three-judge panel about whether or not the Government’s request for a stay will be granted.
• The Government’s opening brief for their appeal on the merits of the preliminary injunction is currently due next week, on April 14.

Media comment from Kimberly Hutchison, Singleton Schreiber LLP:

“I was honored to stand up for our clients’ First Amendment rights today before a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Alongside the ACLU of Oregon and our legal partners, we pointed the Court to the extensive record of facts that we were able to build at this early stage that shows that both the facts and law support leaving a preliminary injunction in place at the Portland ICE building. No person should be subjected to violence for making their dissent heard, and we will tirelessly defend that right at every stage.”

Response to Motion for Stay Pending Appeal filed

The ACLU of Oregon and legal partners filed an opposition to DHS’s motion to stay the District Court’s preliminary injunction, arguing there is no legal or factual basis to pause the injunction prohibiting DHS from using crowd control munitions to silence nonviolent First Amendment expression. Additionally, the State of Oregon filed an amicus brief in support of nonviolent protesters and press exercising their First Amendment rights at the Portland ICE building. The federal defendants have until 5:00 p.m. on April 1 to file any written arguments in reply, and the parties will engage in a virtual oral argument before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit at 10:00 am PT on Tuesday, April 7.

Media comment from Kelly Simon, ACLU of Oregon legal director:

“The ACLU of Oregon and its legal partners are encouraged by the energy being generated nationwide through No Kings and the community-driven efforts to engage in nonviolent protest of this Administration’s cruel policies, including speaking out against the Trump Administration’s violent repression of speech and press activities. There is no legal or factual basis to pause an injunction that protects First Amendment expression from violent retaliation and requires the government to largely follow their own policies. Our team of lawyers is committed to zealously advocating for people’s freedom to exercise First Amendment rights at the heart of our democracy, and we look forward to our next day in court.”

Motion for Stay Pending Appeal granted

A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Department of Homeland Security’s emergency motion for an administrative stay. effectively pausing the injunction granted by Judge Simon in the Dickinson v. Trump case until at least April 7, when the government’s stay motion will be argued alongside a similar motion filed in Reach Community Development et al v. DHS. The administrative stay expressed no position on the merits of the stay motion or the appeal. Oral arguments on the stay motion will be held virtually at 10:00 am PT on Tuesday, April 7.

Media comment from Kelly Simon, ACLU of Oregon legal director:

“We are disappointed that the appeals court paused the injunction before hearing from our clients. We look forward to discussing the law and facts with the court, and intend to present our side promptly.”

Preliminary Injunction Order granted
Preliminary Injunction Order and Opinion
Provisional Class Certification granted
Press Release

Victory! Federal District Court Judge Michael Simon ruled in favor of protesters and journalists, granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Provisional Class Certification prohibiting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers from using crowd control munitions, including pepper balls and tear gas, in retaliation against people for nonviolent protest and reporting at the Portland ICE building.

Kim Hutchison of Singleton Schreiber LLP shared closing statements:

• Ms. Hutchison concluded the plaintiff’s arguments by pointing out that federal agents were not adequately trained on the First Amendment for Operation Skip Jack. Ms. Hutchison reminded the court about the injury of chilling First Amendment speech. Although the physical injuries are substantial, this preliminary injunction motion is about the chilling of First Amendment activity through the Trump Administration’s actions, including through the indiscriminate use of chemical munitions. The Defendants’ actions need a check from the court. Ms. Hutchison also argued that Plaintiffs meet the legal requirements to provisionally certify a class action.

Matthew Borden of BraunHagey & Borden LLP presents plaintiff’s proposal:

• for a preliminary injunction to restrict DHS’s use of force against protesters. Mr. Borden explained that the proposed injunction order is workable.

Denis Vannier of City of Portland spoke on its amicus brief in support of plaintiffs:

• Mr. Vannier said that when the defendants named and put a target on Portland’s back, Portland did not take the bait. Instead, the defendants’ actions sparked an outpouring of courageous resolve and whimsy. The defendants’ use of force negatively impacted the city and Portland Police Bureau’s (PPB) relationship with the community. The City of Portland Mayor and City Council have received hundreds of messages of concern from residents who are concerned about safety.

Scott Kennedy of the State of Oregon spoke on its amicus brief in support of plaintiffs:

• Mr. Kennedy spoke to the impacts of a preliminary injunction if granted by the court. There would be benefits of relief and absence of harm to defendants, and without any relief, there would be harm to Oregonians.

Defendants shared closing arguments:

• In which they argued that Plaintiffs were unable to prove that DHS is operating with retaliatory intent. Defendants argued that a preliminary injunction is not workable, and that Plaintiffs do not meet the requirements of provisional class certification.

Judge Simon did not orally rule from the bench. He indicated that he will issue a decision no later than Monday, March 9.

Jane Moisan of the People’s Law Project took testimony from:

• Jack Dickinson, who has been regularly engaged in nonviolent protest for months at the Portland ICE building. Mr. Dickinson is also known as “the Portland Chicken” because he attends protests dressed in a yellow fleece chicken costume with an American flag draped over his shoulders. Since early April 2025, Mr. Dickinson estimates attending protests on approximately 150 days, about 50-60 hours a week. Mr. Dickinson told the court that starting June 2025, he started to witness patterns of use of force by federal agents against nonviolent protestors, including himself. On August 16, 2025, Mr. Dickinson was struck in his respirator by a pepperball and the legs of his chicken suit were singed. On August 23, 2025, he was shoved by federal agents and shot from the roof of the ICE Building.

Throughout the hearing on Tuesday, plaintiffs presented multiple video excerpts of depositions of DHS agents.

Eri Andriola of ACLU of Oregon took testimony from:

• Helena Bartkowski, a student who regularly attended protests to raise awareness about people impacted by the Federal Government’s immigration policies. She shared with the court her experience of being arrested but her charges being dropped, and that she was subjected to chemical munitions on multiple occasions.

Hadley Rood of BraunHagey & Borden LLP took testimony from:

• Mason Lake, a freelance video journalist and filmmaker who has covered protests in Portland since approximately 2020. He specializes in documenting protests in Portland through high-quality visual media. He extensively covered the George Floyd protests in 2020 and has attended approximately 8-9 nights of protests at the ICE Building since June 2025. Mr. Lake shared with the court his experience of being peppersprayed by Federal Agents despite being clearly marked as press.

Liam Barrett of Singleton Schreiber LLP took testimony from:

• Heather Hellman, Pastor and Head of Staff at Multnomah Presbyterian Church, who shared her experience attending protests at the ICE Building. Pastor Hellman recounted her experience when a flashbang deployed by DHS exploded at her feet and she suffered a concussion.

Matthew Borden of BraunHagey & Borden LLP took testimony from:

• Gil Kerlikowske, an expert on policing and public order policing protests with over 47 years of law enforcement experience. Mr. Kerlikowske served as the police chief and witnessed a wide range of protests in Seattle. Mr. Kerlikowski gave his expert testimony about the use of tear gas and munitions by DHS at Portland ICE Building protests.

Taylor Marrinan of Singleton Schreiber LLP took testimony from:

• Brian Rüdiger, who has a background in union organizing and attended a labor union rally on January 31, 2025 with his family. He told the court about his experience being teargassed. Mr. Rüdiger described the impact of this experience on his children, his health, and how he would show up to protests in the future.

Kelly Simon of ACLU of Oregon shared opening statements:

• Ms. Simon previewed that the evidence presented to the hearing will show that DHS’s Operation Skip Jack at the Portland ICE building is implementing a policy of retaliation being promoted through the operation’s chain of command. The evidence will include live testimony from all five plaintiffs and five other protesters, clips of video recorded deposition testimony of agents and leaders of Operation Skip Jack, and the live testimony of other law enforcement professionals including PPB officers and expert witness Gil Kerlikowske. Defendants also provided an opening statement in which they emphasized that Plaintiffs will be unable to prove that DHS is operating with retaliatory intent.

Ashlee Albies of Albies & Stark, LLC. took live testimony from three Oregon law enforcement officers:

• Franz Schoening from the Portland Police Bureau, Craig Dobson from the Portland Police Bureau, and Cameron Bailey from the Oregon State Police who testified about their observations of Defendants conduct and impressions of the safety and workability of the terms of the current TRO.

ACLU of Oregon Legal Director, Kelly Simon took testimony from:

• Laurie Eckman, an 84-year-old retired woman who lives with her husband, Richard Eckman, in Portland, Oregon and is a Plaintiff in the case. Mrs. Eckman told the court how important and personal immigration issues are for her and her family, and she discussed the ways in which being subjected to chemical munitions on two separate occasions (October 4, 2025 and January 31, 2026) has had longer term effects on her health, lifestyle, and freedom to protest at the ICE building.
• Richard Eckman, an 83-year-old Vietnam War Veteran from the United States Navy and a retired Major in the U.S. Army Reserve and is a Plaintiff in the case. Mr. Eckman discussed the importance of the oath he took to the constitution and the First Amendment, discussed the ways that he felt targeted at a protest on October 4, 2025 including as depicted in a video that Plaintiffs submitted to the court, described the feelings he had when he saw his wife covered in blood later the same day, and described his experiences on January 31, 2026.

Jane Moisan of the People’s Law Project took testimony from:

• Hugo Rios, who is a photographer that was working to document DHS actions at the Portland ICE building until September 1, 2025, when DHS used repeated force on him while he was standing apart from the crowd. Mr. Rios described a very joyful protest crowd that day. However, the officers decided to push the protesters down the street. Mr. Rios described that he was standing well away from any protesters when DHS agents walked past him, rolled a tear gas canister at his feet, then pelted his body from shoulder to feet with an estimated twenty or more pepper balls. The agents also shot and damaged Mr. Rios’s camera. Mr. Rios described the emotional impact of that experience and how it has chilled his desire to continue documenting events at the Portland ICE building.

TRO Granted
Press Release

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, directing Department of Homeland Security officers to stop using crowd control munitions, including pepper balls and tear gas, in retaliation against people who are nonviolently protesting or reporting on DHS violence at the Portland ICE Building.

“I am grateful that Judge Simon agreed that cruelty is not an appropriate response to dissent. Since June, the Trump regime has subjected people in Portland to chemical weapons and violence because they are offended by our words. This administration should hear our grievances and halt their barbaric treatment of our communities. Until then, I hope Portland will continue to show up and exercise our First Amendment rights. Our voices are needed most in times like now,” said Plaintiff, Jack Dickinson (a.k.a “the Portland Chicken”).

Motion for TRO requested

The ACLU of Oregon and its cooperating attorneys submitted an emergency filing on behalf of protesters and journalists on January 27, 2026, in Dickinson (a.k.a. "the Portland Chicken") v. Trump seeking a temporary restraining order.

Class action lawsuit filed
Press Release

In the second Trump Administration, the federal government stepped up federal civil immigration enforcement in communities around the country, including across Oregon. These enforcement activities have become increasingly violent and dangerous, creating widespread fear and increased public opposition to these mass deportation tactics.

The “Portland ICE Building” has been a focal point of community opposition and has become the site of over 100 days of nonviolent protest. Despite the overwhelmingly peaceful activity, the Trump Administration has falsely characterized the building as “under siege” and has authorized “full force” in response. In an effort to suppress voices and storytelling opposed to this Administration’s policies and preferred false narratives, federal officers have targeted protesters and journalists alike with brutal levels of force, including the dangerous and indiscriminate use of near-lethal weapons like exploding tear gas canisters, pepper-ball rifles, flash bang grenades, and other repressive tools.

The lawsuit challenges these blatant attempts to retaliate against protesters and journalists and interfere with fundamental rights enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble and express disagreement with the government.