Chicago appeals court vacates judge’s use-of-force injunction on immigration agents

Chicago Tribune ^ | 3/5/26 | Jason Meisner

[CFW]

A Chicago federal appeals court on Thursday vacated a lower court’s injunction placing use-of-force restrictions on immigration agents during Operation Midway Blitz, calling it “constitutionally suspect” and questioning the manner in which the district judge dismissed the underlying suit.

The three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was split 2-1, with Chief Judge Michael Brennan and Judge Michael Scudder in the majority and Judge Frank Easterbrook dissenting.

The ending of the Trump administration’s appeal was a foregone conclusion after U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis in January granted a motion by the plaintiffs to dismiss the underlying lawsuit.

But the 7th Circuit went beyond a mere dismissal of the appeal and ordered what’s known as “vacatur,” which essentially treats Ellis’ preliminary injunction ruling as though it never existed. In the 15-page majority opinion, the judges wrote that Ellis, “working on a highly compressed timeline … granted an overbroad, constitutionally suspect injunction.”

[snip]

The ruling officials ends a case brought by the Chicago Headline Club and other media groups, leading to a sweeping preliminary injunction by Ellis in November limiting the use of tear gas and other chemical munitions against members of the media and protesters, and also requiring agents to wear body cameras and clear identification.

[snip]

The plaintiffs moved to drop the suit in December following ominous signs from the 7th Circuit, which called Ellis’ order overbroad and a potential infringement on the separation of powers.

[CFW]

Another win for the Trump administration. This time from the Seventh Circuit.

[Lurker]

Now do the stupid PICA Act.

L

[HIDEK6]

Thank you for the translation.

Legalese is opaque.

[Organic Panic]

FYI. The new talking point is out (there are hired agitators that spam the local rag website) to describe ALL ICE agents as former Proud Boys and KKK members who only just signed up when Trump was reerected (HT Chuckie Schumer). That helps them with their lies that they are all whites who just want to bash “brown people” and they have only a few weeks of training. These posters are antifa goons from Portland and usually the first to get the talking points before they go on to the garbage dump,of main stream DNC media whores like CNN and MSClown.

[CFW]

FYI. The new talking point is out (there are hired agitators that spam the local rag website) to describe ALL ICE agents as former Proud Boys and KKK members who only just signed up when Trump was reerected (HT Chuckie Schumer). That helps them with their lies that they are all whites who just want to bash “brown people” and they have only a few weeks of training. These posters are antifa goons from Portland and usually the first to get the talking points before they go on to the garbage dump,of main stream DNC media whores like CNN and MSClown.

---

I noticed that new narrative. The Democrats repeat it as do their little paid minions on social media.

[PBRCat]

Federal Judge Sarah Ellis is an activist in judicial robes.
She was nominated by Barack Obama because Illinois needed a Canadian born jurist born to Jamaican parents to impose her personal preferences on the masses.

[Elsie]

...use-of-force restrictions...

...will include, asking them nicely to leave, saying, "pretty please won't you take your children out of our cages and take them to visit abuela."

[CFW]

Here is an interesting amicus brief filed by Norm Eisen and crew in Kristi Noem v Doe.

Do State and Federal judges have an obligation to try to follow Supreme Court emergency orders in good faith? 175 former and retired judges say "no", endorsing the ongoing resistance by district courts to orders the Supreme Court has *already said* are binding.

These 175 judges apparently believe the only binding part of a judicial opinion is its reasoning, not its ultimate judgment. I do not think that is the best read of longstanding case law--much less the Supreme Court's recent admonition in Boyle.

Somewhat shockingly, the brief all but insults the Supreme Court's practice on the emergency docket. Calling the Court's orders unreasoned, the judges assert the orders contain nothing. That is a dramatic misread. Much more appropriate for the author Norm Eisen than the ex-judges.

Former federal circuit judges include: Mike Luttig (CA4), Andre Davis (CA4), Allyson Duncan (CA4), Harlan Henry (CA10), Kent Jordan (CA3), Paul Michel (CAFC), Kathleen O'Malley (CAFC), John Tinder (CA7), Thomas Vanaskie (CA3). These judges reject the Supreme Court's view.

I'm not so sure this is going to go over well with the SCOTUS justices.

The Brief can be found here:

Brief