By Herman Legal Group — The Law Firm for Immigrants™
To discuss how this ruling may affect you or your community, book a confidential consultation.
Introduction
On November 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis issued a historic preliminary injunction limiting how federal immigration agents may use force in the Chicago area.
The decision followed evidence that federal personnel deployed tear gas and pepper balls against peaceful demonstrators, clergy, and journalists during Operation Midway Blitz. Incidents of federal agents using aggressive tactics have led to public safety concerns in residential neighborhoods.
Judge Ellis described parts of the government’s account as “not credible” and found that agents’ actions “shocked the conscience.”
Her full 31-page ruling—available here—bars the use of riot-control weapons unless there is an immediate threat to safety, requires body-worn cameras, and mandates visible identification badges.
Read coverage in Associated Press, Reuters, and The Washington Post.
“On November 6, 2025, Judge Sara Ellis ruled that immigration agents may not deploy tear gas or pepper balls against peaceful protesters unless there is an immediate threat of violence.”
Operation Midway Blitz: The Enforcement Campaign Behind the Case
The case stems from Operation Midway Blitz, a federal immigration enforcement campaign targeting undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metropolitan area.
The campaign drew protests outside the ICE Broadview Detention Center and other immigration facilities, where demonstrators and media alleged agents had used excessive force. Aggressive tactics by federal agents have created fear and mistrust within immigrant communities.
For background reporting, see WBEZ’s coverage and Courthouse News Service’s analysis.
What the Court Found
The court found that Gregory Bovino, a senior Border Patrol official, had lied under oath, falsely claiming that a protester threw a rock before tear gas was used.
Video and eyewitness evidence contradicted his statement.
Judge Ellis determined that the agents’ actions violated constitutional rights to free expression and due process. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis found the government’s evidence in favor of immigration agents to be “simply not credible.”
“No federal officer, regardless of mission, may disregard the protections guaranteed under the Constitution,” Ellis wrote.
Key Terms of the Injunction
You can read the full Preliminary Injunction Order here.
1. Restrictions on Force
Agents cannot use tear gas, pepper balls, or impact munitions unless there is an immediate threat to human safety.
2. Required Warnings
Agents must issue two clear audible warnings before using any weapon, unless danger prevents it. Federal agents must issue two warnings before deploying tear gas or using other riot control weapons.
3. Body-Worn Cameras
Agents must record all enforcement operations and preserve footage for a minimum of 180 days.
4. Identification Requirements
Agents must display visible nameplates or badge numbers in two places on their uniform.
5. Protection for Journalists and Clergy
Agents may not arrest, threaten, or disperse members of the press or clergy unless they commit a crime.
Constitutional Reasoning
The ruling emphasizes that civil immigration enforcement does not override constitutional rights.
Ellis grounded her analysis in the following: The decision reinforces First Amendment rights of individuals to protest and Fifth Amendment due process rights.
- First Amendment: Protects speech, press, assembly, and religious participation.
- Fourth Amendment: Prohibits excessive force.
Under Graham v. Connor (1989), all uses of force must be objectively reasonable.
Judge Ellis held that firing chemical munitions into peaceful crowds failed this test.
Immediate Impact in Chicago
The injunction binds DHS, ICE, CBP, and Federal Protective Service officers in the Northern District of Illinois.
Key takeaways for local communities:
- No tear gas or pepper balls absent immediate threat.
- Mandatory body cameras and visible ID.
- Journalists and clergy are protected observers.
Although DHS plans to appeal to the Seventh Circuit, the injunction is immediately enforceable unless stayed.
Nationwide Implications and the Project 2025 Context
Influence on National Policy
The order is already influencing DHS policy discussions about nationwide force protocols, documentation, and body-camera rules.
A Blueprint for Future Challenges
Lawyers in California, Texas, Ohio, and other states are studying the Ellis injunction as a template for litigation where immigration agents use excessive force.
Implications for Project 2025 Enforcement Plans
With Project 2025 proposals calling for expanded immigration raids and expedited removals, this decision serves as a judicial guardrail.
Ellis’s order signals that constitutional constraints—warnings, transparency, proportionality—apply to civil enforcement, even during mass deportation efforts.
For Immigrants, Journalists, and Clergy
- Record safely and respectfully. Video evidence is key to accountability.
- Stay calm and assert your rights. You may film federal agents performing official duties in public.
- Seek counsel immediately if you experience or witness excessive force.
For a practical overview, visit Immigrant Rights During Enforcement Operations.
For Immigration Lawyers and Advocates
Immigration attorneys can use this decision to strengthen defense and civil-rights claims:
- Demand body-cam footage and force reports during discovery.
- Move to suppress evidence gathered during unlawful force events.
- Coordinate with civil-rights attorneys for joint actions under Bivens or §1983 equivalents.
As Richard T. Herman of Herman Legal Group explains:
“This ruling is a major step toward restoring accountability. It reminds every agency—ICE, CBP, or DHS—that the Constitution does not stop at the border of enforcement authority.”
Midwest and Ohio Legal Context
Beyond Illinois, the Ellis injunction is shaping strategy across the Midwest.
Firms in Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Youngstown—including Herman Legal Group—are incorporating the decision into removal defense and civil-rights litigation strategies.
Detailed FAQ: Understanding the Chicago Use-of-Force Ruling
Q1. Does the order apply only in Illinois?
Yes. The injunction covers the Northern District of Illinois, but its reasoning can be used persuasively in other jurisdictions.
Q2. What prompted the lawsuit?
Plaintiffs—including the Chicago Headline Club, clergy, and protesters—alleged they were attacked with tear gas during Operation Midway Blitz, violating their First and Fourth Amendment rights.
Q3. What counts as an “immediate threat”?
An immediate threat means imminent risk of serious physical harm. Chanting, recording, or verbal criticism does not meet that definition.
Q4. Can ICE still detain people?
Yes. The injunction doesn’t stop arrests—it only restricts unreasonable use of force during operations.
Q5. How does this affect ICE nationwide?
Expect DHS to standardize new use-of-force and recording policies to avoid copycat lawsuits in other regions.
Q6. Can this be used to challenge future Project 2025 raids?
Yes. Lawyers can cite Ellis v. DHS as precedent if nonviolent individuals or journalists are harmed during large-scale operations.
Q7. How can victims of force seek help?
They can file civil-rights complaints through the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and contact an immigration attorney immediately.
Q8. What’s next legally?
DHS will appeal to the Seventh Circuit. The injunction stays in effect unless a higher court suspends it.
Q9. How long does the injunction last?
Until the court modifies it or the case ends. It may later become permanent if plaintiffs prevail.
Q10. Why is this decision historic?
It’s the first major federal order limiting immigration-related use of force in the Midwest—establishing enforceable standards for body-cams, identification, and warnings.
Key Takeaways
- Federal immigration agents in Chicago must follow strict limits on use of force.
- The ruling sets a legal precedent for transparency and proportionality.
- The injunction may guide DHS policies nationwide.
- Immigrants, journalists, and clergy gain explicit legal protection.
- The order challenges the unchecked expansion of enforcement power envisioned under Project 2025.
Resource Guide
Primary Legal Documents
- Preliminary Injunction Order (Nov. 6, 2025) — Full 31-page ruling by Judge Sara L. Ellis, Northern District of Illinois.
- Case Docket — Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-12173 — CourtListener summary and filings.
- TRO Order (Oct. 10, 2025) — Earlier version of court’s temporary restraining order.
Media Coverage and Analysis
- Associated Press — Judge restricts immigration agents’ use of force.
- Reuters — U.S. judge rejects “riot” defense.
- Washington Post — “Shocks the conscience” headline.
- WBEZ Chicago — Local context and eyewitness accounts.
- CBS Chicago — Overview of key restrictions.
Government and Rights Resources
- DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) — File civil-rights complaints against DHS officers.
- U.S. Department of Justice — Civil Rights Division — Federal complaints and enforcement.
- Know Your Rights During ICE Raids (ACLU) — Printable multilingual resources.
- Herman Legal Group — Immigrant Rights Enforcement Guide — Practical local guide for immigrants and advocates.
Legal and Community Support
- National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
- American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) — Chicago Chapter
- Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — Support for journalists covering immigration enforcement.
Need Help?
If you believe you or your community have been affected by excessive force during an immigration enforcement action, contact Herman Legal Group today.
👉 Schedule a confidential consultation
