A federal appeals court has temporarily halted a lower court’s order that sought to restrict immigration agents’ use of force in the Chicago area, deeming the ruling ‘too prescriptive.’ The Seventh Circuit panel cautioned against overinterpreting the stay, stating that a fast-track appeal could yield a ‘more tailored and appropriate’ order. The injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis, had barred agents from using physical force and chemical agents such as tear gas and pepper balls unless necessary or to prevent an immediate threat. The judge had said the use of such tools violated the constitutional rights of journalists and protesters, following allegations of excessive force during immigration operations that resulted in over 3,000 arrests since September. Justice Department lawyers argued that the order restricted law enforcement’s ability to carry out its duties and could ‘subvert’ the constitutional structure. The panel noted that the order was ‘too prescriptive’ because it specified riot control weapons and other devices in a way that ‘resembles a federal regulation.’
Ellis’ order barred agents from using physical force and chemical agents such as tear gas and pepper balls unless necessary or to prevent ‘an immediate threat.’ The judge said the use of those tools violated the constitutional rights of journalists and protesters. Witnesses told the court they were tear-gassed, shot with pepper balls while praying and had guns pointed at them. The immigration operation has drawn multiple lawsuits, including claims of inhumane conditions at a federal immigration facility — allegations that prompted a federal judge and attorneys to visit the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement center outside Chicago last week. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin called the stay ‘a win for the rule of law and for the safety of every law enforcement officer.’ The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This case highlights the ongoing tensions between law enforcement and civil liberties advocates, with the legal battle over the use of force during immigration operations reflecting broader debates about the balance between security and individual rights. The ruling underscores the importance of judicial oversight in ensuring that law enforcement actions comply with constitutional protections, even as agencies face pressure to maintain public safety and enforce immigration laws effectively.