The Trump administration secured a victory Thursday when a federal appeals court vacated a lower-court ruling that placed use-of-force restrictions on immigration enforcement officers during Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago.
In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals called the lower-court ruling "constitutionally suspect" and questioned the manner in which U.S. District Court Judge Sara Ellis dismissed the underlying suit.
Ellis was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
Chief Judge Michael Brennan and Judge Michael Scudder formed the majority, and Judge Frank Easterbrook dissented.
Brennan and Scudder were appointed by President Donald Trump, and Easterbrook was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan.
"Tonight the @thejusticedept delivered a huge legal win in the 7th Circuit for President Trump in support of Operation Midway Blitz – @POTUS's crucial law enforcement surge into Chicago," Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a post on X.
"President Trump is trying to protect American citizens while local elected officials REFUSE to do so," she continued.
"@thejusticedept attorneys were proud to argue this case. We will continue fighting and WINNING for the President's law-and-order agenda."
Ellis issued the preliminary injunction in November after journalists and protesters sued federal officials, alleging immigration agents used tear gas, pepper balls, and other crowd-control weapons against demonstrators during Operation Midway Blitz, a surge in immigration enforcement activity in the Chicago area.
Her order broadly restricted the use of certain force tactics and applied to federal officers operating throughout the Northern District of Illinois.
The appeals panel said the injunction swept far beyond the incidents described in the lawsuit, effectively applying to entire federal agencies, including the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.
The court said the order also intruded on executive authority by requiring federal officials to submit internal policies and directives for judicial review.
The panel wrote that the injunction effectively placed federal immigration enforcement under judicial supervision, saying it "established the district court as the supervisor of all Executive Branch activity in the city of Chicago."
The ruling also questioned whether the plaintiffs had standing to seek such sweeping relief, noting that "standing is not dispensed in gross" and must be established for each claim and form of relief sought.
The judges said the district court appeared to rely on speculation about possible future misconduct even though incidents tied to the protests had largely subsided.
The appeals court said the case effectively became moot after the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the lawsuit, telling the courts the immigration operation had ended and that they had not received reports of unconstitutional conduct for weeks.
Because the plaintiffs sought forward-looking injunctive relief rather than damages, the panel said there was no longer a live controversy.
Even so, the judges said vacating the injunction was necessary to prevent the district court's findings and legal conclusions from affecting future litigation.
The appellate court had previously criticized Ellis earlier in the case after she ordered a senior DHS official to appear in court daily to answer questions about compliance with her temporary restraining order.
The 7th Circuit said that requirement improperly placed the court in the role of "an inquisitor" and intruded on executive branch authority.
Easterbrook argued the court should have simply dismissed the appeal after both sides abandoned the case.
"When all parties declare that they do not want judicial aid, the litigation should end forthwith," he wrote.
Michael Katz ✉
Michael Katz is a Newsmax reporter with more than 30 years of experience reporting and editing on news, culture, and politics.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.