An appeals court on Wednesday paused a preliminary injunction put in place earlier this month prohibiting federal agents from using certain crowd-control methods in Chicago. Photo by Tannen Maury/UPI | License Photo
A federal appeals court has paused a preliminary injunction barring federal immigration officers from using force in Chicago, calling the district court order “overbroad.”
The two-page order from a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes in a case filed in early October against the Trump administration, accusing federal agents of using excessive force against media and demonstrators protesting the federal government’s immigration operations in the Chicago area.
Earlier this month, District Judge Sara Ellis issued a preliminary injunction barring federal agents from using crowd-control measures ranging from batons to tear gas and flash-bang grenades.
In its ruling Wednesday, the 7th Circuit Court sided with the federal government, ruling that Ellis’ order was overly expansive in scope.
“The preliminary injunction entered by the district court is overbroad,” the court said.
The district court’s order handcuffs an “expansive range of defendants” from the president of the United States to all of the departments of Homeland Security and Justice, it said.
“The practical effect is to enjoin all law enforcement officers within the Executive Branch,” the court said.
The district court’s order requiring all defendants to submit all current and relevant future internal guidance, policies and directives for review is a mandate that infringes on the principles of the separation of powers, while listing scores of riot control weapons that cannot be used “in a way that resembles a federal regulation.”
The appeals court also questioned the argument that without an injunction protesters will face similar harm that they allege they previously suffered given that reports state the situation in Chicago has calmed.
While awarding the Trump administration a win in the case, the appeals court was quick to warn against over-reading its decision, stating a more narrow injunction may be put in place.
The court also expedited the appeals process.
“Acting on a very compressed timeline, the district court has developed voluminous and robust factual findings. Those findings may support entry of a more tailored and appropriate preliminary injunction that directly addresses the First and Fourth Amendment claims raised by these plaintiffs,” the court said.
