A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a judge’s restrictions on how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents can respond to protests in Chicago, siding with the Trump administration in a decision that could influence ongoing debates about federal law enforcement tactics. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s emergency request to pause an earlier order that required agents to issue warnings before using tear gas or non-lethal weapons, display clear identification, wear body cameras, and refrain from arresting or dispersing journalists covering immigration-related demonstrations.
The appeals panel said the original ruling by U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis effectively overstepped judicial authority and interfered with the executive branch’s ability to enforce federal law. While the judges emphasized that their decision did not undermine the protesters’ claims of constitutional violations, they argued that any restrictions must be more narrowly tailored.
Judge Ellis issued her order on November 6 after reviewing extensive testimony from protesters, journalists, and clergy members who described violent encounters with federal agents outside an immigration detention center in Broadview, Illinois, and in Chicago neighborhoods. Witnesses recounted incidents involving guns pointed at protesters’ heads, pepper-ball rounds striking a pastor during prayer, and allegations of retaliation against individuals filming ICE operations. Ellis stated that the government’s claims about violent protesters were not credible, citing several instances where she believed federal agents provided misleading accounts.
The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the appeals court decision, calling it a victory for public safety and law enforcement integrity. The ruling arrives as Chicago remains a focal point of the Trump administration’s intensified immigration enforcement initiatives under “Operation Midway Blitz,” which has included the deployment of tear gas in residential areas and the involvement of National Guard troops—moves that have sparked legal challenges and national scrutiny.
The appeals court has placed the case on an expedited schedule, meaning further review of Ellis’ reasoning is expected soon, keeping the legal battle over federal force and protest rights in Chicago far from resolved.


TrumpRx.gov Highlights GLP-1 Drug Discounts but Offers Limited Savings for Most Americans
Trump Signs “America First Arms Transfer Strategy” to Prioritize U.S. Weapons Sales
Norway Opens Corruption Probe Into Former PM and Nobel Committee Chair Thorbjoern Jagland Over Epstein Links
Ohio Man Indicted for Alleged Threat Against Vice President JD Vance, Faces Additional Federal Charges
Supreme Court Tests Federal Reserve Independence Amid Trump’s Bid to Fire Lisa Cook
Citigroup Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment by Top Wealth Executive
New York Judge Orders Redrawing of GOP-Held Congressional District
U.S. Lawmakers to Review Unredacted Jeffrey Epstein DOJ Files Starting Monday
Trump Administration Sued Over Suspension of Critical Hudson River Tunnel Funding
New York Legalizes Medical Aid in Dying for Terminally Ill Patients
Google Halts UK YouTube TV Measurement Service After Legal Action
Panama Supreme Court Voids CK Hutchison Port Concessions, Raising Geopolitical and Trade Concerns
Missouri Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Starbucks’ Diversity and Inclusion Policies
Trump Family Files $10 Billion Lawsuit Over IRS Tax Disclosure
Trump Endorses Japan’s Sanae Takaichi Ahead of Crucial Election Amid Market and China Tensions
US Judge Rejects $2.36B Penalty Bid Against Google in Privacy Data Case
Pentagon Ends Military Education Programs With Harvard University 



