A panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals criticized a Canadian-born, Obama-appointed judge for her excessive and unlawful imposition of operating procedures on all federal officers 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.”
The text suggested that her legal strategies were designed to give the impression of dismissing an unconstitutional order while still allowing future litigants to revive the case.
The situation began when violent protesters blocked immigration enforcement efforts during “Operation Midway Blitz.” Upon realizing that this operation wouldn’t be handled with the same leniency as the George Floyd Memorial Riots and Looting Festival, and that Border Patrol tactical commander Greg Bovino’s team was ready for confrontation, the anarchists and communists went whining to momma. Per the court order:
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 that Ellis’ order was overly expansive is the understatement of the year.
Three days after plainti?s filed this lawsuit, the district court entered a sweeping temporary restraining order not limited to the Broadview facility. It enjoined all law enforcement o?cers 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 e?orts at implementing the injunction.
One part of the order required Bovino to report to her daily to provide updates on his activities. I believe the Department of Homeland Security demonstrated remarkable restraint by not instructing Ellis to “get lost.” Foreseeing future developments, a panel of the Seventh Circuit quickly rejected that absurdity:
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.
‘Infringes…’ Ya think?
Recognizing that the Supreme Court had limited the power of random judges to issue nationwide injunctions, the demonstrators sought a sympathetic judge to grant them class action status. This allowed other demonstrators to be included as part of the “class” of plaintiffs, enabling the judge to effectively issue a nationwide injunction against ICE tactics:
On November 6, the district court granted the plainti?s’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Certifying the proposed class, the injunction enjoined all federal law enforcement o?cials 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 plainti?s and occurred far beyond the Broadview facility. The court also found that all the plainti?s 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 plainti?s’ favor.
The critical moment occurred when the Seventh Circuit approved the government’s request to stay Judge Ellis’s order: “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.
This case is now closed, at least for the time being. ICE can return to its usual operations without the concern of Judge Ellis looming over them. Other district judges within the Seventh Circuit have been put on notice to adhere to the rules. Additionally, they have established a precedent that other appellate courts can reference if they encounter similar situations in the future.
