A US federal appeals court on Wednesday removed a preliminary injunction that restricted federal agents’ use of force against protestors in the Chicago area.
The panel held that the lower court order was “overbroad” and impractical, writing:
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 … the district court’s order is too prescriptive … in a way that resembles a federal regulation.
Plaintiffs, a group of journalist organizations and individual protestors, sued President Donald Trump’s administration in October after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced Operation Midway Blitz, which purported to “target the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Chicago.” Plaintiffs alleged that federal agents’ tactics violated multiple federal laws, including the First and Fourth amendments and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In November, US District Judge Sara Ellis ordered ICE agents to limit use of force, prohibiting riot-control weapons against journalists or protestors except under specific and narrow conditions.
On appeal, the administration challenged the efficacy and legality of the lower court’s order:
This overbroad and unworkable injunction has no basis in law, threatens the safety of federal officers, and violates the separation of powers. Plaintiffs lack standing to seek this sweeping prospective relief based solely on past incidents of alleged misconduct that they only speculate may recur. Nor can plaintiffs’ claims support the relief ordered, which is untethered from the constitutional and statutory provisions that plaintiffs invoked and which reaches well beyond plaintiffs to restrain all DHS operations within the Northern District of Illinois. The injunction is also unworkable in practice, transforming a single district court into a supervisory tribunal for adjudicating the lawfulness of federal officers’ day-to-day operations.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed, holding that the lower court acted as a quasi-administrative body in issuing the order, infringing on separation of powers principles. The court also expressed reservations about plaintiffs’ Article III standing because it was not entirely clear that they would suffer harm in the future. The court is expected to schedule oral arguments on the substantive case at a later date.
In June, the administration launched a series of ICE raids across Los Angeles, with federal officials in “paramilitary gear brandished rifles and abducted community members from churches, local businesses, and courthouses.” Many communities, including those in Chicago, came together to protest the raids. Trump has since attempted to deploy the National Guard to quell protests in multiple cities.
