Attorneys suddenly seek dismissal of lawsuit limiting use of force by immigration agents following concerning signals from 7th Circuit

In a surprising development in ongoing litigation, the plaintiffs in a case restricting immigration agents use of force during Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago have requested the dismissal of the underlying lawsuit, even as the Trump administration pursues an appeal. Lawyers representing media organizations and other plaintiffs argued that the immigration surge in Chicago has concluded, and since November 8, no reports of unconstitutional conduct have emerged that would justify continuing the case.

If approved, the dismissal could end a high-profile case that highlighted the chaos caused by Midway Blitz. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis had previously issued strict limitations on agents use of tear gas and other munitions, especially against journalists and protesters.

The Chicago Headline Club, the lead plaintiff, celebrated the development, noting that Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino and his team left the city shortly after the injunction was implemented. The federal government appealed, and the lower courts preliminary injunction was temporarily stayed, the Clubs statement read. With the federal presence reduced, we see no reason to continue litigation and will accept this outcome.

Attorney Steve Art, representing the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit exposed the harsh tactics of the Trump administrations immigration enforcement and discredited the governments justifications for using force. He described Judge Elliss ruling as a defining document of our time.

The plaintiffs also emphasized their readiness to return to court if federal agents resume aggressive operations or infringe on constitutional rights. According to the dismissal request, the Department of Justice agreed to drop its appeal provided the case is dismissed with prejudice, preventing it from being refiled. A DOJ spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The move comes after indications from a conservative three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously issued an emergency stay on Ellis injunction. The court had scheduled expedited briefing and set arguments for later this month. DOJ lawyers argued that the case represented a broader trend of courts issuing injunctions that interfere with law enforcement and the separation of powers.

The appellate panel, composed of Republican-nominated judges, criticized the injunction as overly broad, noting that it effectively restricted all federal law enforcement officers, including the President and the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. The court highlighted that Ellis order required officials to submit future use-of-force guidelines for review, which the panel said infringed on executive authority, and found the order too prescriptive regarding riot control weapons.

Judge Ellis ruling had detailed incidents captured by body-worn cameras showing agents deploying tear gas, using flash-bang grenades on fleeing protesters, firing pepper balls at a praying minister, and even using AI to assist in reports. The 233-page opinion documented confrontations across Chicago neighborhoods and criticized the reliability of agents use-of-force reports, which misidentified ordinary citizens as agitators while showing apparent enjoyment in deploying munitions on residential streets.

The injunction required agents to issue two warnings before using tear gas, wear body cameras, display clear identification, and refrain from targeting journalists or interfering with news coverage. Unlike an earlier temporary order, this injunction was to remain until a final decision on the case, with a hearing on a permanent injunction tentatively set for March.

In its appeal, the DOJ argued that Ellis injunction was excessively broad, allowing the court to micromanage federal law enforcement and interfere with protests. They claimed the order obstructed law enforcement, chilled executive action, and undermined the constitutional framework.

Author: Sophia Brooks