On November 6, 2025, a federal courtroom in downtown Chicago became the latest battleground over the limits of government power and the rights of citizens to protest. U.S. District Court Judge Sara Ellis issued a sweeping injunction against federal immigration enforcement agents, sharply restricting their use of force against protesters, journalists, and clergy in the city. The ruling is a direct response to what Ellis described as a pattern of force that "shocks the conscience" and repeated violations of constitutional rights during the Trump administration's "Operation Midway Blitz."
Judge Ellis’s decision, delivered from the bench at the Dirksen Federal Building, was not only a legal rebuke but a pointed moral statement. She began her order by reading Carl Sandburg’s iconic poem "Chicago," dubbing the city the "City of Big Shoulders," and concluded with a warning from John Adams: "Liberty once lost is lost forever." Her message was clear—federal agents had crossed a line, and the courts would not stand idly by.
According to AP News and The Guardian, Ellis found ample evidence that federal agents had repeatedly violated Chicagoans’ First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, as well as the free exercise of religion. She recounted multiple incidents in which agents deployed tear gas, pepper balls, and other crowd control measures against peaceful protesters, journalists, and even members of the clergy. "The use of force shocks the conscience," Ellis declared. "This conduct shows no sign of stopping."
Perhaps most damning were Ellis’s findings regarding the credibility of federal agents’ testimony. She stated bluntly, "I find the government’s evidence to be simply not credible." The judge singled out Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino, the commander of Operation Midway Blitz, for particular criticism. During a five-hour deposition, Bovino admitted to lying about whether a rock hit him before he used tear gas on protesters in Little Village, Chicago, in October. Video evidence showed Bovino launching a tear gas canister into a crowd without warning, and then firing a second as people fled—contradicting his sworn statements.
Ellis detailed other troubling episodes, including an incident outside the Broadview ICE facility where video showed Bovino tackling a man, despite his denial under oath that he had used force. The judge noted that federal agents "indiscriminately" fired tear gas at Chicagoans on seven occasions since October 3, 2025, including an incident on October 24 where body-worn camera footage captured agents mocking the crowd as they deployed chemical agents. One agent was recorded saying "have fun!" as the gas was released, followed by another agent urging, "throw another one." There were no warnings given to disperse, as Ellis’s prior order required.
The injunction that Ellis issued is comprehensive. It mandates that federal agents may use force only when it is "objectively necessary to stop an immediate threat of the person causing serious bodily injury or death to another person." Before any force is used, agents must issue two separate warnings. The order also requires agents to wear "conspicuous identification" in two places and to activate body-worn cameras during enforcement actions. These rules, Ellis emphasized, are designed to protect not only the rights of protesters and journalists but also the integrity of law enforcement itself.
Ellis’s ruling refines an earlier temporary restraining order from October, which had already banned agents from using certain riot-control techniques—such as tear gas—against peaceful protesters and journalists, and required them to display badges. The new injunction adds the body camera requirement and sets out a clear protocol for when and how force can be used.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by news outlets—including the Chicago Headline Club, Chicago Newspaper Guild Local 34071, and Block Club Chicago—as well as protesters and advocacy groups. During an eight-hour hearing on November 5, witnesses gave emotional testimony about their experiences. According to The Guardian, some described being shot in the head with pepper balls while praying, others recounted having guns pointed at them for recording agents in residential neighborhoods. Judge Ellis questioned these witnesses about how the events affected them, and one after another, they spoke of anxiety and fear about returning to protests.
Leslie Cortez, a youth organizer from Cicero, testified, "I get really nervous because it just feels like I’m not safe. And I question my safety when I go out." The chilling effect on civic participation was a central concern for Ellis, who said, "that would cause a reasonable person to think twice about exercising their fundamental rights."
Throughout her ruling, Ellis pushed back against the government’s portrayal of Chicago as a city "in a vice hold of violence, ransacked by rioters and attacked by agitators." She said, "That simply is untrue. And the government’s own evidence in this case belies that assertion." Instead, she praised Chicagoans for "standing watch to protect the most vulnerable among us," noting that rapid response networks and neighborhood moms had been unfairly maligned as "professional agitators."
Federal officials, for their part, were quick to denounce the ruling. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security vowed to appeal, calling Ellis an "activist judge that risks the lives and livelihoods of law enforcement officers." During the hearing, Department of Justice attorney Sarmad Khojasteh argued that agents had been prevented from enforcing federal law by violent protestors, asking, "This case addresses to what extent does the freedom of speech protect people throwing rocks, bottles, trespassing, pinning down law enforcement, slashing tires, wielding weapons."
Yet Ellis was not swayed by these arguments. She pointed out that just because some individuals may have broken the law during protests, "that does not mean that others lose their constitutional rights." She criticized federal agents for targeting journalists, clergy, and people merely exercising their constitutional freedoms. Attorney Craig Futterman, representing the media organizations, summarized the stakes: "We have children, parents and grandparents who will forever be afraid to exercise their very rights that make this country great, assaulted by the very people assigned to protect those freedoms."
In a further attempt to ensure accountability, Ellis had ordered Bovino to meet with her every weekday at 6 p.m. to discuss agents’ actions in Chicago. However, an appellate court panel later overturned this daily meeting order, citing separation of powers concerns. Still, Bovino was required to wear a body-worn camera, and, according to lawyers for the Trump administration, he complied.
The legal and political battle is far from over. The Trump administration is expected to appeal Ellis’s injunction, setting up a likely showdown in higher courts over the scope of federal power and the rights of citizens to protest. Meanwhile, the residents of Chicago—and the nation—are left to grapple with the consequences of these confrontations between law enforcement and civil liberties.
For many in Chicago, Judge Ellis’s ruling is a vindication of their right to speak out, assemble, and hold power to account. As the city’s residents continue to "show up for each other," the eyes of the country remain fixed on how justice will be served and rights preserved in the face of federal authority.
