Has ICE faced lawsuits for using less-lethal weapons on religious figures?

1. The pattern: clergy hit by pepper balls and chemical agents

Reporting and advocacy groups document a pattern in which religious leaders protesting outside ICE facilities were struck with pepper balls, sprayed with tear gas or otherwise subjected to chemical and kinetic “less‑lethal” munitions; FRONTLINE’s investigation cites instances of religious leaders shot with pepper balls and people nearly blinded by tear gas during immigration‑related demonstrations ^[3], and the ACLU of Illinois details clergy who say they were repeatedly targeted with projectiles and chemical agents at Broadview, Illinois ^[1].

2. Lawsuits filed by faith groups seeking protection for houses of worship

Separate from force‑use suits, dozens of denominational bodies and congregations have sued the federal government to bar ICE enforcement actions at houses of worship and to protect religious freedom, arguing the rescission of “sensitive locations” policies exposed worshippers to enforcement and retaliation; a wide coalition of Jewish and Christian groups filed a federal challenge in February 2025, representing denominations from Baptist to Reform Jewish communities ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Civil suits and First Amendment litigation tied to use of crowd‑control weapons

Several civil suits and ACLU litigation directly challenge federal tactics as violating First Amendment rights and as disproportionate force; plaintiffs and organizational plaintiffs have alleged that the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper‑balls and flash grenades against protesters, journalists and religious practitioners amounted to unconstitutional suppression of speech and worship, and those cases sought injunctive relief to limit weapon use ^{[1] [6]}.

4. Judicial response: injunctions and limits on “riot control” weapons

Federal judges have begun to respond: one reported order barred agents from using a list of “riot control weapons” against journalists, protesters or religious practitioners who were not posing an immediate threat, and prohibited specific targeting practices such as firing compressed‑air launchers at the head or neck absent imminent danger, while also ordering visible identification for agents — an explicit judicial restriction tied to litigation arising from protests at ICE sites ^[2].

5. Official defenses and competing narratives

ICE and CBP have defended their training and use‑of‑force protocols, saying agents are trained to use the minimum force necessary and receive de‑escalation training even as manufacturers and civil‑rights experts note those weapons can be lethal and cause serious injuries ^{[3] [7]}. That institutional defense sits alongside testimony to state accountability bodies documenting blunt‑force trauma and respiratory and eye injuries from chemical agents, offered by medical experts and faith leaders in hearings ^[8].

6. Broader legal strategies: fines, retaliatory enforcement and sanctuary litigation

Faith leaders have pursued a spectrum of legal responses — from suits challenging fines and alleged retaliatory enforcement against sanctuary leaders (filed by groups including the Center for Constitutional Rights) to coalition litigation aimed at protecting worship spaces — illustrating that legal challenges are not limited to use‑of‑force claims but also attack related patterns of enforcement and penalties that affect religious communities ^{[9] [4]}.

7. Limits of the record and what remains unresolved

The available reporting shows multiple, overlapping lawsuits and at least one judicial order limiting use of crowd‑control weapons against religious practitioners ^{[1] [2]}, but public reporting does not provide a comprehensive catalog of every civil suit, the complete status or outcomes of all cases, nor does it settle disputed factual claims about every individual incident; ICE’s institutional posture and legal defenses are documented by the agency and by news outlets, creating a contested record that courts are sorting out ^{[3] [1]}.