(CHICAGO, ILLINOIS) Federal immigration agents in the Chicago area are now indefinitely restricted from using riot control weapons such as tear gas and pepper balls against peaceful protesters under a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis on November 6, 2025. The order, prompted by conduct during Operation Midway Blitz, binds the Department of Homeland Security and its enforcement arms and will remain in force until the court changes it or the case ends.
Judge Ellis ruled that agents may not deploy tear gas or pepper balls against peaceful demonstrators unless there is an immediate threat to human safety, sharply curbing tactics that plaintiffs said were used without justification at protests across the Northern District of Illinois. In a scathing assessment, she described parts of the government’s account as “not credible” and said agents’ actions “shocked the conscience.” The judge added in her written order:
“No federal officer, regardless of mission, may disregard the protections guaranteed under the Constitution.”
From the bench, she reiterated:
“The use of force shocks the conscience.”
The injunction reaches across multiple DHS components — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Federal Protective Service — and explicitly applies to operations in the Northern District of Illinois, including Chicago. It stands as an immediate, enforceable directive unless a higher court stays it, underscoring that the use of riot control weapons during civil immigration enforcement must meet strict constitutional standards.
The court mandated a series of transparency and accountability measures for federal agents operating under DHS. Agents must wear body-worn cameras, keep recorded footage for at least 180 days, and display visible identification badges in two places on their uniforms. Before any agent uses tear gas, pepper balls, or other riot control weapons, the order requires two clear audible warnings, unless there is an immediate danger to human life. Journalists and clergy are explicitly protected from arrest, threats, or dispersal unless they commit a crime — a direct response to allegations that press and faith leaders were targeted while observing or ministering at protests.
The case stems from incidents during Operation Midway Blitz, a series of immigration enforcement actions where protesters, clergy, and journalists reported that federal officers used excessive force, including tear gas, outside the ICE Broadview Detention Center and at several demonstrations in neighborhoods such as Old Irving Park, Evanston, and Little Village. Plaintiffs, including the Chicago Headline Club, clergy, and protesters, said:
“The court has affirmed that what happened to us was wrong, that our right to speak, to gather and to protest is still protected by the First Amendment. The court’s ruling makes it clear our voices matter.”
They alleged they were “shot at and… gassed” while protesting peacefully.
The court’s findings focused not only on the effects of the force used, but on credibility and compliance from those leading Operation Midway Blitz. Gregory Bovino, a senior Border Patrol official who headed the operation, was found to have lied under oath about the timing and justification for deploying tear gas. He initially claimed a protester threw a rock before tear gas was used; under sworn testimony, he later admitted the rock was thrown after he had already deployed the canister. That reversal became a central point in Judge Ellis’s conclusion that the government’s narrative was “not credible” and that the deployment “shocked the conscience,” bolstering the injunction’s strict limits.
Attorneys representing protesters and journalists said they will closely monitor federal compliance.
“Every single time that Greg Bovino violates the injunction in this case, we and the community… will file something with the court. We will make a record and we will ask for sanctions,”
the plaintiffs’ legal team stated. The warning signals both the seriousness of the alleged abuses and the plaintiffs’ intent to use the court’s oversight tools if the limits are breached during any future enforcement actions.
The Department of Homeland Security criticized the ruling and indicated it would seek to overturn it. In a statement, DHS called the decision “an extreme act by an activist judge that risks the lives and livelihoods of law enforcement officers.” The agency announced plans to appeal, arguing the injunction could hinder agents’ ability to protect public safety during volatile situations. For now, however, the order is immediately enforceable unless a higher court suspends it. The department has not specified when it will file its appeal. DHS leadership emphasized that the agency’s national mission includes maintaining order during protests adjacent to federal operations, but the ruling makes clear that, at least in the Chicago area, any use of riot control weapons will face heightened scrutiny.
The injunction’s terms are sweeping in their procedural detail and immediate operational effect. Federal officers must issue two clear audible warnings prior to deploying tear gas or pepper balls, except when there is an imminent and specific threat to human safety. In practice, that means a protest scene cannot be cleared with chemical agents solely to enforce a dispersal order; there must be an immediate danger that cannot be mitigated by other steps. The requirement that agents wear body-worn cameras and preserve footage for no less than 180 days creates a documentary record intended to resolve disputes about what occurred and who gave the order. Visible identification on two parts of the uniform helps witnesses and later investigators identify officers in real time and after the fact. And the explicit protections for journalists and clergy mean that neutral observers and faith leaders cannot be rounded up or pushed away absent a crime, curbing tactics that plaintiffs say were used to chill speech and suppress documentation.
Although the order is limited to the Northern District of Illinois, legal experts following the case say it could shape DHS guidance across the country and serve as a model for legal challenges elsewhere. The court’s approach — imposing clear standards for warnings, documentation, and identification — could travel, especially if other judges adopt similar reasoning when reviewing federal officers’ use of riot control weapons during immigration enforcement. Attorneys note that the case is one of the first major federal orders in the Midwest to set enforceable rules on transparency, proportionality, and constitutional protections at immigration protests, and it arrives as DHS faces questions about the use of force during large-scale operations.
The ruling’s timing intersects with broader national debates over enforcement powers, including proposals under Project 2025 that would expand executive authority in immigration policy and operations. The court’s message —
“No federal officer, regardless of mission, may disregard the protections guaranteed under the Constitution”
— places a clear judicial check on the idea that civil immigration enforcement can sidestep First Amendment and due process rights during public demonstrations. It also echoes lessons from previous protest cases, where courts have emphasized warnings, identification, and narrow use of chemical agents to prevent blanket crowd-control measures that sweep up peaceful demonstrators, credentialed journalists, and clergy standing nearby.
For communities around the ICE Broadview Detention Center and neighborhoods like Old Irving Park, Evanston, and Little Village, the order sets immediate ground rules. If protests resume, agents now face legally enforceable limits on when they can use tear gas or pepper balls, backed by camera footage and identification requirements meant to make violations easier to verify. Plaintiffs said the order vindicates those who documented tear gas drifting through crowds and pepper balls fired in chaotic scenes.
“The use of force shocks the conscience,”
Judge Ellis said in court, echoing what protest organizers had argued since the first deployments under Operation Midway Blitz.
The credibility finding against Gregory Bovino could loom large over any appeal. By concluding that his testimony changed in a way that undermined the government’s justification — he “lied under oath,” and his revised timeline acknowledged that the rock was thrown after the tear gas canister was deployed — the court undercut the argument that officers needed riot control weapons to respond to immediate violence. That determination feeds directly into the injunction’s core standard: weapons may be used only when there is an immediate threat to human safety. Without a credible record of immediate danger, the government is unlikely to persuade a higher court to lift the order soon.
DHS’s public statement shows how sharply the two sides disagree about what happened and what the law permits. By calling the ruling “an extreme act by an activist judge that risks the lives and livelihoods of law enforcement officers,” the department framed the injunction as a hazard to officer safety, not a protection of civil rights. Plaintiffs responded in court filings and statements that the order still allows force in true emergencies, while setting guardrails against sweeping crackdowns at peaceful events. For now, DHS and its sub-agencies must adapt operations to the stricter approach while the appeal proceeds.
The injunction’s indefinite nature is striking. Unlike time-limited temporary restraints, this order lasts until the court modifies it or the case ends, and it could become permanent if plaintiffs prevail. That means the constraints on riot control weapons during Operation Midway Blitz-era protests will likely govern any similar DHS activity in the Chicago area in the coming months. Legal observers expect the order to influence training, documentation procedures, and command protocols, as supervisors ensure that warnings are issued, cameras are activated, and badges are clearly visible before any crowd-control decisions are made.
The safeguard for journalists and clergy is notable because of the groups involved in the lawsuit. The Chicago Headline Club, representing reporters and editors, joined clergy and protesters in pressing the court to protect observers and faith leaders from being swept up when they are not breaking the law. Their joint statement —
“The court has affirmed that what happened to us was wrong, that our right to speak, to gather and to protest is still protected by the First Amendment. The court’s ruling makes it clear our voices matter”
— captures how the order is likely to be read by newsrooms and congregations that have accompanied immigrant families at rallies, vigils, and marches.
The requirement for two clear audible warnings brings a level of procedural clarity often missing in fast-moving protest situations. Protesters, reporters, and clergy now have a clear expectation that they will hear warnings before any deployment of tear gas or pepper balls, unless there is an immediate threat to life. This standard aligns with practices that some police departments use to verify that the crowd had a fair chance to comply or disperse before force escalates. Combined with the camera mandate and badge visibility, the rule creates a paper and video trail for any future dispute, ensuring that claims of compliance or noncompliance can be tested against recorded facts.
For federal immigration agencies operating under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, the order creates a Chicago-specific but potentially influential precedent. ICE, CBP, and the Federal Protective Service must now incorporate the court’s directives into their planning for any public-facing immigration enforcement, whether outside detention centers or near federal buildings. If future protests unfold, field commanders will need to weigh the “immediate threat” standard carefully, as any misstep could draw swift motions for sanctions. Plaintiffs’ lawyers made clear they would not wait:
“Every single time that Greg Bovino violates the injunction in this case, we and the community… will file something with the court. We will make a record and we will ask for sanctions.”
Operation Midway Blitz became a focal point in the case not only for the force used but for the broader question of constitutional rights during civil immigration enforcement. Judge Ellis’s core conclusion —
“No federal officer, regardless of mission, may disregard the protections guaranteed under the Constitution”
— sets an unmistakable boundary for federal action in public spaces. For protest organizers and immigrant advocacy groups, that line is a practical shield: speak, gather, and document without fear of chemical agents unless there is an imminent danger, and expect that officers will be identifiable and recorded while on duty.
DHS has said it will appeal, and the next phase will turn on how the appellate court views the injunction’s scope and the district court’s factual findings. Appeals courts often defer to trial judges on credibility determinations, and the finding that the government’s version was “not credible” could be hard to overcome. In the meantime, DHS must comply or risk contempt proceedings in a high-profile case that has already drawn attention from national civil rights groups and local news organizations. The order’s practical constraints are likely to be tested as immigration enforcement continues and demonstrations persist in and around Chicago.
For Chicago’s immigrant communities and their supporters, the injunction answers a basic question about the limits of force at public protests that arise around detention and deportation proceedings. It states plainly that riot control weapons are off the table unless there is a clear, immediate threat to human safety — and that the use of such weapons will be recorded, traceable to specific officers, and preceded by warnings that everyone can hear. In a city where Sunday prayer vigils and weekday courthouse rallies often draw a mix of families, clergy, and reporters, those rules are more than legal text; they are ground-level expectations.
The Department of Homeland Security has not said when it will file its appeal, but the agency’s public rebuttal signals a fight over how immigration enforcement intersects with protest rights. For now, the court’s order stands, and the Chicago area’s federal agents will operate under rules that prioritize warnings, documentation, and identification over immediate resort to tear gas or pepper balls. The ruling may ripple beyond Illinois as other courts weigh similar claims and as DHS reassesses field guidance in the face of judicial scrutiny. The outcome could shape the balance between civil enforcement and constitutional protections well beyond the life of Operation Midway Blitz, in Chicago and, potentially, across the country.
For DHS’s official statements and policy updates, readers can consult the Department of Homeland Security.
This Article in a Nutshell
On November 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis issued a preliminary injunction barring DHS components in the Northern District of Illinois from using tear gas or pepper balls against peaceful demonstrators unless there is an immediate threat to human safety. The order mandates body-worn cameras with 180-day retention, visible identification on uniforms, and two audible warnings before deploying riot control weapons. It explicitly protects journalists and clergy and cites credibility findings against Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino, strengthening plaintiffs’ claims tied to Operation Midway Blitz.
