Seventh Circuit Takes a Blowtorch to Order Issued by Abusive, Anti-ICE Chicago Judge

A panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals scorched a Canadian-born, Obama-appointed judge for her heavy-handed and illegal imposition of operating procedures on all federal officers operating in Illinois. The majority opinion said the order imposed by Judge Sara Ellis, "impermissibly infringes on separation of powers principles. It effectively established the district court as the supervisor of all Executive Branch activity in the city of Chicago." It also hinted that her legal maneuvering was calculated to appear to dismiss an unconstitutional order while preserving the ability of future litigants to breathe new life into the suit.

 

---

BACKGROUND:

Trump's Not Playing with Democrat-Run Cities: Operation Midway Blitz Is On – RedState

Winning: ICE Ramping Up Chicago Operation With Multiple Arrests – RedState

Doing Jobs Americans Won't Do: Operation Midway Blitz Uncovers That an Illinois Cop Is an Illegal Alien – RedState

---

The case started with the violent protesters obstructing immigration enforcement operations during “Operation Midway Blitz.” When they found out that this was not going to be treated the same as the George Floyd Memorial Riots and Looting Festival and that Border Patrol tactical commander Greg Bovino's guys were more than willing to mix it up, the communists and anarchists ran to mommy. (Unless otherwise noted, all blockquotes are from the court ruling.

In early October 2025, a group of protesters and journalists sued a host of federal defendants. They believed officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights by using tear gas and other chemical agents to break up protests without justification. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs and entered a sweeping preliminary injunction regulating all federal immigration enforcement efforts districtwide. The government promptly appealed that order.

To say the order was expansive is an understatement.

Three days after plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, the district court entered a sweeping temporary restraining order not limited to the Broadview facility. It enjoined all law enforcement officers in the Northern District of Illinois, as well as federal agencies and the Secretary of the DHS, from using certain crowd control tactics and tools. It also required the defendants to regularly inform the court of its efforts at implementing the injunction.

One part of the order required Bovino to report to her daily to brief her on his activities. I think the Department of Homeland Security showed remarkable restraint in not telling Ellis to FOAD. Auguring things to come, a panel of the Seventh Circuit immediately slapped down that silliness.

First, it puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator of the parties’ adversarial presentations. Second, it sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the Executive Branch. These two problems are related and lead us to conclude that the order infringes on the separation of powers.

Keenly aware that the Supreme Court had slapped down the ability of random judges to issue nationwide injunctions (see Big: Supreme Court Rules on Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Cases – RedState), the demonstrators got a friendly judge to grant them class action status. This meant that other demonstrators could be included as part of the "class" of plaintiffs, and the judge could effectively create a nationwide injunction on ICE tactics. 

On November 6, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Certifying the proposed class, the injunction enjoined all federal law enforcement officials in Chicago, as well as multiple federal agencies.

Two weeks after granting class certification and preliminary relief, the district court issued a full opinion. It contained over 170 pages of fact-finding, including many incidents that did not involve named plaintiffs and occurred far beyond the Broadview facility. The court also found that all the plaintiffs had Article III standing to sue for injunctive relief and concluded they were likely to succeed on the merits.

On the facts, the district court found the government’s witnesses categorically not credible. This tilted all the testimonial evidence in the case in the plaintiffs’ favor.

RedState covered much of this action. 

---

BACKGROUND:

7th Circuit Puts the Kibosh on Judge's Micromanagement of ICE Operations in Chicago – RedState

Morning Minute: The Imperial Judiciary Is Back at It – RedState

7th Circuit Clips District Court's Wings on Chicago Immigration Enforcement – RedState

---

The crunch point seems to have happened when the Seventh Circuit granted the government's request for a stay of Judge Ellis's order. As Susie Moore noted, "In granting that request, the 7th Circuit was careful to note that it wasn't ruling out the propriety of some injunctive relief — merely determining that the injunction Ellis entered was overly broad."

Defendants are likely to succeed on the merits. The preliminary injunction entered by the district court is overbroad. In no uncertain terms, the district court’s order enjoins an expansive range of defendants, including the President of the United States, the entire Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, and anyone acting in concert with them. The practical effect is to enjoin all law enforcement officers within the Executive Branch. Further, the order requires the enjoined parties to submit for judicial review all current and future internal guidance, policies, and directives regarding efforts to implement the order—a mandate impermissibly infringing on principles of separation of powers on this record. Finally, the district court’s order is too prescriptive. For example, it enumerates and proscribes the use of scores of riot control weapons and other devices in a way that resembles a federal regulation.

The writing was sort of on the wall. The plaintiffs decided to fold and preserve the possibility of relitigating rather than have the Circuit Court rule that Ellis's order was unconstitutional nonsense.

But the proceedings took an unexpected turn. In early December, the plaintiffs informed us they had moved to dismiss the case with prejudice before the district court...And the government did not oppose the motion to dismiss.  

Note the "with prejudice" requirement. 

The plaintiffs' request to dismiss the case and the defendants' agreement should have ended the matter. But this is where Judge Ellis got cute. By certifying a class, the named plaintiffs not only represented themselves, but they also represented basically any other group of commies and anarchists in the country who wanted to throw hands with ICE. The dismissal "with prejudice" would prevent all those people from pursuing their cases.

At the final hearing, the district court dismissed the case. In doing so, the court deviated from Rule 23 and the plaintiffs’ motion. It sua sponte de-certified the class. Then the court dismissed the case without prejudice—even though plaintiffs had asked for dismissal with prejudice.   The government returned to this court seeking to dismiss this appeal and flagged these concerns. In many ways, the government submitted, the district court did not “grant” the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss at all because it disregarded the terms of the plaintiffs’ motion. Still, the government asked us to vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the appeal.  

These two decisions by Ellis meant that no one else was affected by the dismissal of the case and that the plaintiffs could sue again in the future and again be certified as a class. The intent seemed to be to allow Ellis to make the same ruling again in the future, with the same or different plaintiffs, and make the administration fight the same fight again. Perhaps several times.

Ordinarily, an appeals court would have considered the case moot as both sides wanted to end the litigation. In this case, the Seventh Circuit was suspicious.

The district court’s order may also spawn adverse legal consequences. Because the district court dismissed this case without prejudice—against the plaintiffs’ unopposed request for a dismissal with prejudice—any class members or the lead plaintiffs could refile these claims tomorrow. They could ask the district court to reinstate a near-identical preliminary in junction, adopting the facts and legal reasoning from the district court’s order. 

So, this case is closed, at least for now. ICE can go back to doing ICE business without worrying about Judge Ellis. Other district judges in the Seventh Circuit are on notice to follow the rules. Plus, they set a model for other courts of appeal to draw on if they are confronted with the same shenanigans.

For decades, former presidents have been all talk and no action. Now, Donald Trump is eliminating the threat from Iran once and for all.