A federal judge said Thursday she will order federal agents in Chicago to restrict using force against peaceful protesters and news media outlets, saying current practices violate their constitutional rights. The preliminary injunction came in response to a lawsuit alleging federal agents have used excessive force in their immigration crackdown in the Chicago area. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis 's ruling, which is expected to be appealed by President Donald Trump's administration, refines an earlier temporary order that required agents to wear badges and banned them from using certain riot-control techniques, such as tear gas, against peaceful protesters and journalists. After repeatedly chastising federal officials for not following her previous orders, she added a requirement for body cameras. Ellis, who began Thursday’s hearing by describing Chicago as a “vibrant place” and reading from poet Carl Sandburg’s famous poem about the city, said it is “simply untrue” that the Chicago area is a violent place of rioters. A day earlier, attorneys for both sides repeatedly clashed in court over the accounts of several incidents during the immigration crackdown that began in September, including one where a Border Patrol commander threw a cannister of tear gas at a crowd. “I don’t find defendants’ version of events credible,” Ellis said. Ellis said agents will be required to give two warnings before using riot control weapons and that agents are restricted from using force unless it is “objectively necessary to stop an immediate threat.” She described protesters and advocates facing tear gas, having guns pointed at them and being thrown to the ground, saying “that would cause a reasonable person to think twice about exercising their fundamental rights.” The preliminary injunction stems from a lawsuit filed by news outlets and protesters who say agents have used too much force during demonstrations. In court, an attorney representing the federal government said senior Border Patrol official Greg Bovino, has a body-worn camera after Ellis required him to get one and complete the training for using it at a previous hearing. A message left Thursday for the Department of Homeland Security wasn’t immediately returned. During Wednesday's eight-hour hearing, witnesses gave emotional testimony when describing experiencing tear gas, being shot in the head with pepper balls while praying, and having guns pointed at them when recording agents in residential streets. Ellis questioned witnesses about how these experiences impacted them and if they prevented them from protesting again. One after another, witnesses described their anxiety about returning to protests or advocacy work. “I get really nervous because it just feels like I'm not safe,” Leslie Cortez, a youth organizer in the Chicago suburb of Cicero, told Ellis. “And I question my safety when I go out.” Attorneys also played footage of a five-hour deposition, or private interview, of Bovino where he defended agents' use of force and dodged questions about Border Patrol tactics in the nations' third-largest city.

A federal judge on Nov. 5 ordered prosecutors in the criminal case of former FBI Director James Comey to produce to defense lawyers a trove of materials from the investigation, saying he was concerned the U.S. Department of Justice’s position had been to “indict first" and investigate second. U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick instructed prosecutors to produce by the end of the day on Nov. 6 grand jury materials and other evidence that investigators seized during the investigation. The order followed arguments in which Comey’s attorneys said they were at a disadvantage because they had not been able to review information that was collected years ago as part of an investigation into FBI media leaks. Comey, who attended the hearing but did not speak, is charged with lying to Congress in 2020 in a case filed days after President Donald Trump appeared to urge his attorney general to prosecute the former FBI director and other perceived political enemies. Comey has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers have argued that it's a vindictive prosecution brought at the direction of the Republican president and must be dismissed. Fitzpatrick raised his own concerns, telling lawyers on Nov. 5, “The procedural posture of this case is highly unusual.” He said it appeared to him that the DOJ had decided to “indict first” and investigate later. Comey's defense lawyers had already asked for a transcript of grand jury proceedings, citing irregularities in the process and potential legal and factual errors that they said could result in the dismissal of the case. The judge granted that request and ordered prosecutors to produce to defense lawyers evidence seized through search warrants in 2019 and 2020 from Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and close friend of Comey. Richman factors into the case because prosecutors say that Comey had encouraged him to engage with reporters about matters related to the FBI and that Comey therefore lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he denied five years ago having authorized media leaks. But Comey’s lawyers say he was explicitly responding to a question about whether he had authorized former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to serve as an anonymous source. Comey’s lawyers told the judge they had not reviewed the materials taken from Richman, who had earlier served as a lawyer for Comey, and thus could not know what information was privileged and may have been improperly used as evidence. “We’re going to fix that, and we’re going to fix that today,” the judge said. Comey's indictment came days after Trump in a social media post called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against Comey and other longtime foes of the president. The indictment was brought by Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide and Trump lawyer who was installed as U.S. attorney after the longtime prosecutor who had been overseeing the investigation resigned under administration pressure to indict Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The DOJ in court papers earlier this week defended the president's social media post, contending it reflects “legitimate prosecutorial motive” and is no basis to dismiss the indictment.

Hurling a sandwich at a federal agent was an act of protest for Washington, D.C., resident Sean Charles Dunn. A jury must decide if it was also a federal crime. “No matter who you are, you can’t just go around throwing stuff at people because you’re mad,” Assistant U.S. Attorney John Parron told jurors on Nov. 4 at the start of Dunn's trial on a misdemeanor assault charge. Dunn doesn't dispute that he threw his submarine-style sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent outside a nightclub on the night of Aug. 10. It was an “exclamation point” for Dunn as he expressed his opposition to President Donald Trump’s law-enforcement surge in the nation’s capital, defense attorney Julia Gatto said during the trial's opening statements. “It was a harmless gesture at the end of him exercising his right to speak out,” Gatto said. “He is overwhelmingly not guilty.” A bystander's cellphone video of the confrontation went viral on social media, turning Dunn into a symbol of resistance against Trump’s monthslong federal takeover. Murals depicting him mid-throw popped up in the city virtually overnight. “He did it. He threw the sandwich,” Gatto told jurors. “And now the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has turned that moment — a thrown sandwich — into a criminal case, a federal criminal case charging a federal offense.” A grand jury refused to indict Dunn on a felony assault count, part of a pattern of pushback against the Department of Justice's prosecution of surge-related criminal cases. After the rare rebuke from the grand jury, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office charged Dunn instead with a misdemeanor. CBP Agent Gregory Lairmore, the government's first witness, said the sandwich “exploded” when it struck his chest hard enough that he could feel it through his ballistic vest. “You could smell the onions and the mustard,” he recalled. Lairmore and other CBP agents were standing in front of a club hosting a “Latin Night” when Dunn approached and shouted profanities at them, calling them “fascists” and “racists” and chanting “shame." “Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police. Lairmore testified that he and the other agents tried to de-escalate the situation. “He was red-faced. Enraged. Calling me and my colleagues all kinds of names,” he said. “I didn't respond. That's his constitutional right to express his opinion.” After throwing the sandwich, Dunn ran off but was apprehended about a block away. Jurors saw video from an officer's body camera after Dunn's arrest. “I was trying to draw them away from where they were,” Dunn said on the video. “I succeeded.” Later, Lairmore's colleagues jokingly gave him gifts making light of the incident, including a sandwich-shaped plush toy and a patch that said “felony footlong.” Defense attorney Sabrina Schroff pointed to those as proof that the agents recognize the case is “overblown” and “worthy of a joke.” Parron told jurors that everybody is entitled to their views about Trump's federal surge. “Respectfully, that's not what this case is about,” the prosecutor said. “You just can't do what the defendant did here. He crossed a line.” Dunn was a DOJ employee who worked as an international affairs specialist in its criminal division. After Dunn’s arrest, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced his firing in a social media post that referred to him as “an example of the Deep State.” Dunn was released from custody but rearrested when a team of armed federal agents in riot gear raided his home. The White House posted a highly produced “propaganda” video of the raid on its official X account, Dunn’s lawyers said. Dunn's lawyers have argued that the posts by Bondi and the White House show Dunn was impermissibly targeted for his political speech. They urged U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols to dismiss the case for what they allege is a vindictive and selective prosecution. Nichols, who was nominated by Trump, didn't rule on that request before the trial started on Nov. 3. Dunn is charged with assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with a federal officer. Dozens of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were convicted of felonies for assaulting or interfering with police during the Jan. 6 attack. Trump pardoned or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of them.