Chicago’s federal appeals court on Wednesday put a temporary hold on the sweeping order handed down earlier this month that restricted the feds’ use of force against protesters and observers during the aggressive deportation campaign that’s since ramped down.
A three-judge panel from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the Nov. 6 order from U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis as “overbroad.” Still, it warned people not to “overread today’s order.” It promised a quick appeal process that could lead to a “more tailored and appropriate” preliminary injunction.
Ellis’ order forbade agents from using “riot control weapons” against protesters or observers who pose no immediate threat, and without two warnings. It put a restriction on the use of chokeholds and required agents to display identifying star or badge numbers “conspicuously” in “two separate places.”
While handing down the order, she said the use of force she’d seen in Chicago “shocks the conscience.” She also said arguments by the Trump administration about the threat faced by federal agents in Chicago’s streets “lack credibility.”
Wednesday’s appellate court order came from Judges Michael Brennan, Frank Easterbrook and Michael Scudder.
“In no uncertain terms,” they wrote, “[Ellis’] order enjoins an expansive range of defendants, including the President of the United States, the entire Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, and anyone acting in concert with them. The practical effect is to enjoin all law enforcement officers within the Executive Branch.”
The appellate court judges also questioned whether plaintiffs in the case have standing that would allow them to pursue the case. They wrote that “open questions remain whether plaintiffs have shown that the past harm they allegedly faced is likely to imminently happen to them in the future.”
They also acknowledged “public reporting suggesting that the enhanced immigration enforcement initiative may have lessened or ceased, which could affect both the justiciability of this case and the propriety of injunctive relief.”
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.