Trump administration asks appeals court to block judge's order limiting immigration agents' use of force in Chicago
The Trump administration is asking an appeals court to halt a judge's order limiting federal agents' use of force during the ongoing immigration enforcement operation in Chicago.
In seeking an emergency stay of a preliminary injunction issued last week by U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis while they appeal her ruling to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump administration attorneys argued her order is "overbroad and unworkable," will put agents' safety at risk, and violates the separation of powers between the courts and the executive branch.
"This Court's prompt intervention is once more required to stay this untenable injunction, protect the safety of the public and law-enforcement officers, and restore the balance of power between the Executive and Judicial Branches," attorneys wrote.
On Thursday, Ellis issued a preliminary injunction placing long-term restrictions on federal immigration agents' use of force during "Operation Midway Blitz" in Chicago, saying that agents' repeated aggressive use of force against peaceful protesters "shocks the conscience" and "shows no sign of stopping."
Ellis said she found the Trump administration's testimony about agents' use of force "to be simply not credible," saying Border Patrol Commander at Large Gregory Bovino had lied in testimony about the threats protesters posed before he personally used force in certain instances.
Pointing specifically to a clash between agents and protesters last month in Little Village during which Bovino personally threw a tear gas canister into the crowd, Ellis said "Defendant Bovino admitted that he lied. He admitted that he lied that a rock hit him before he deployed tear gas in Little Village."
She also said that during an incident in Brighton Park on Oct. 4, video shows that "Defendant Bovino obviously attacks and tackles" a person to the ground, despite saying he never used force against that person.
Ellis criticized the government for how they have characterized civilian opposition to immigration enforcement, saying, "Describing rapid response networks and neighborhood moms as professional agitators [shows] just how out of touch agents are."
The injunction Ellis ordered stems from a lawsuit filed by a group of protesters and journalists over immigration agents' aggressive tactics in Chicago. Ellis had already issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting agents from using tear gas and other riot control weapons against people who do not pose an immediate threat. Agents are also required to issue two warnings before deploying tear gas or using other riot control weapons.
Those restrictions were set to expire on Thursday, but the preliminary injunction issued by Ellis keeps them in place indefinitely.
"It is difficult to conceive how an injunction requiring the government to comply with the Constitution could possibly be harmful," Ellis said on the bench on Thursday as she explained her ruling.
Trump administration attorneys accused Ellis of overstepping her authority with such a sweeping injunction dictating when agents can use during the immigration crackdown in Chicago.
"What began as a complaint by journalists and protestors alleging that DHS officers targeted them with crowd-control devices at a handful of protests in September and early October has transformed into an instrument for judicial micromanagement of federal law-enforcement operations in the Chicago area," they wrote. "Indeed, this injunction is so granular it consumes eight pages, governing everything from body-worn cameras, to agent identification, to the content of warnings before rioters may be dispersed, to when agents may use chokeholds, tackle suspects, or deploy tear gas."
In response to the Trump administration's bid to halt Ellis' injunction, attorneys for the journalists and protesters who sued over agents' use of force argued "there is no exigency or emergency that justifies an administrative stay of the district court's preliminary injunction while this Court considers the government's stay motion."
"Having waited days after the entry of the preliminary injunction to move for a stay in this Court, the Defendants cannot now argue that there exists an urgent emergency requiring the Court's aberrationally swift intervention before the parties have even had an opportunity to brief the Defendants' pending stay motion," the plaintiffs' attorneys added.
It's unclear how soon the 7th Circuit could rule on the Trump administration's request to halt Ellis' injunction while the case is under appeal.