Article Summary
- A Chicago federal judge on Thursday declined to immediately grant a motion by protesters who sued the Trump administration over immigration agents’ use-of-force tactics this fall after an appeals court stayed her order restricting agents’ ability to use riot control weapons like tear gas.
- U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis expressed worry over the administration’s plans to further target Chicago, citing Wednesday’s fatal shooting by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.
- Though she said she couldn’t “force plaintiffs to litigate a case they don’t want to litigate,” the judge said she had a responsibility to the class she already certified in the case and delayed her decision on dismissal to Jan. 22.
This summary was written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.
CHICAGO — A federal judge on Thursday registered worry over this week’s fatal shooting in Minneapolis by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent as she asked for more time in deciding whether to dismiss a lawsuit over federal agents’ use-of-force tactics against protesters in Chicago and surrounding areas.
Just before the Trump administration’s “Operation Midway Blitz” abruptly wound down its Chicago area immigration enforcement campaign in November, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a preliminary injunction that indefinitely restricts agents’ ability to use force, including riot control weapons like tear gas. But after the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Ellis’ ruling two weeks later, plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case.
Read more: 7th Circuit stays judge’s order restricting immigration agents’ use of riot control weapons | Restrictions on federal immigration agents’ use of riot control weapons extended indefinitely
But during a hearing Thursday, Ellis expressed some skepticism about the wisdom of that maneuver. The judge cited Wednesday’s fatal shooting of motorist Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.
“And it doesn’t give me much comfort in reading news reports that someone who — in some news reports, anyway — was described as a legal observer was shot yesterday in Minneapolis,” Ellis said. “So that is my concern.”
Video of the incident contradicts the Trump administration’s narrative that the shooting was justified because Good was boxing in agents with her car and attempting to use it as a weapon.
Wednesday’s shooting echoes the case of Miramar Martinez, which was overseen by Ellis’ colleague this fall. Martinez was also accused of having boxed in immigration agents with her car in an early October incident on Chicago’s South West side before a Border Patrol agent shot her five times. She was charged with assaulting federal immigration agents but Martinez denied allegations that she was a threat. By mid-November, the case fell apart and prosecutors asked that the charges be dismissed.
At several times over the course of litigation in the riot control weapons case this fall, Ellis noted her belief that the Trump administration, especially U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, had lied about the tenor of protests of immigration enforcement actions in order to justify using force against demonstrators.
Initially, Ellis had scheduled an early March trial in the case based on news reports that Bovino would return to the Chicago area in the early spring with a much larger contingent of agents, telling attorneys during a mid-November hearing that, “It would make sense that if it does ramp up again, everyone knows what the rules are.” But granting the plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal of the case would cancel the trial.
Read more: DOJ lawyer says it’s ‘wrong to allege’ Operation Midway Blitz is over
Ellis also cited Bovino’s brief return to Chicago in December and news reports this week that several dozen Border Patrol agents had returned to the area Tuesday night before she asked lawyers for the plaintiffs if they still want to move forward with dismissal.
After attorneys confirmed that was still the plan, the judge said that while she “certainly cannot force plaintiffs to litigate a case they don’t want to litigate,” she still has “an obligation to protect the interests of the class.” The complaint was filed as a class-action lawsuit and Ellis certified the class this fall.
“If I dismiss this case, the preliminary injunction ceases to exist,” she said. “Certainly, given my ruling, I believe that the evidence in this case justified the need for a prelim injunction to govern the actions of the government when interacting with legal observers, journalists and protesters.”
Moving to dismiss the lawsuit will prevent the 7th Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court from giving the Trump administration any permanent expanded powers against civilians. Despite the specter of losses on appeal, plaintiffs’ lawyers have framed ending the case as a win.
Ellis asked for more time before making her final decision on dismissal, scheduling the next hearing for Jan. 22.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
Comments