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. 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, just before the Trump administration’s “Operation Midway Blitz” abruptly wound down its Chicago area immigration enforcement campaign in November.
What changed
After the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Ellis’ ruling two weeks later, plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case. 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, but granting the plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal of the case would cancel the trial.
During a January 9, 2026 hearing, 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 said “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”.
While she said 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 judge delayed her decision on dismissal to Jan. 22.
Why it matters
The preliminary injunction Ellis issued—restricting agents’ use of riot control weapons like tear gas against protesters, journalists, and legal observers—has been in limbo since the 7th Circuit stayed it. If the lawsuit is dismissed, the preliminary injunction ceases to exist.
However, Ellis’s hesitation signals judicial concern about abandoning protections for first-amendment-protected conduct if federal enforcement operations resume in Chicago. Ellis also cited Bovino’s brief return to Chicago in December and news reports that several dozen Border Patrol agents had returned to the area Tuesday night, suggesting the judge remains watchful for enforcement escalation.
For class members (protesters, journalists, legal observers), the delayed decision means the injunction’s status remains uncertain for another two weeks. For practitioners representing clients in the Chicago area, this case will likely influence how judges view federal agents’ conduct and the enforceability of injunctions restricting use-of-force tactics.
Way forward
- Review the class certification: Confirm whether you or your clients fall within the certified class in this class-action lawsuit (protesters, journalists, legal observers in Chicago-area immigration enforcement context).
- Monitor the January 22 hearing: Track the judge’s ruling on dismissal; if she grants it, the injunction automatically dissolves and the preliminary relief evaporates.
- Prepare for renewed enforcement: Border Patrol agents have already returned to the Chicago area; if Operation Midway Blitz resumes, the injunction’s loss would remove a key limit on agents’ conduct.
- Preserve appellate record: If plaintiffs pursue dismissal, understand the implications for future class-action challenges to federal immigration enforcement tactics.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis reflects public court filings and news reporting and should not be relied upon as legal counsel. Immigration policy and litigation strategy are highly fact-specific; you should consult a licensed immigration attorney or qualified representative before relying on any guidance here. The status of this lawsuit, appellate proceedings, and any preliminary injunction may change without notice; verify the current posture of the case and applicable law against the primary source and current court docket before advising clients.