(CHICAGO, MIDWEST) — A targeted bond request and a suppression-based defense—built around alleged warrantless arrests and due process violations—has become a central strategy for some immigrants swept into Operation Midway Blitz, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE continue enforcement activity into February 2026.
What follows is a defense-strategy guide, not case-specific advice. It explains how attorneys are challenging arrests, seeking release from detention, and positioning cases for termination or suppression where legally supportable.
1) Overview of Operation Midway Blitz
Operation Midway Blitz is a DHS/ICE-led enforcement initiative concentrated in Chicago and the broader Midwest. As of Monday, February 23, 2026, official statements describe it as ongoing, with continued arrests, detention transfers, and removal processing.
For immigrant communities and local institutions, an “active operation” usually means more enforcement encounters. It can also mean more jail and courthouse pickups, home arrests, and field stops. It often brings faster custody transfers across states. It can also produce higher “failure-to-appear” risks when families cannot find detained relatives quickly.
This guide focuses on the legal pressure points most relevant to defense strategy: detention release, suppression arguments tied to alleged warrantless arrests, and how new or expanded NTA issuance practices may increase removal exposure.
2) Official statements and narratives
DHS and ICE have repeatedly framed Operation Midway Blitz as a public safety operation. The public messaging has emphasized targeting “criminal illegal aliens” and work in “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Those themes appear in late-2025 and early-2026 statements attributed to DHS leadership and ICE Chicago ERO.
Why the framing matters: it can affect operational priorities, detention decisions, and public expectations. It can also shape later legal scrutiny. Court findings and oversight records do not always match public narratives. Lawyers therefore treat press releases as leads, not proof.
To verify what the government has claimed, readers can review DHS and ICE releases directly at dhs.gov and ice.gov, and compare them to oversight correspondence and court filings.
Warning: Do not assume a public claim about “worst of the worst” means DHS must prove a criminal conviction in immigration court. Most removal grounds are civil, not criminal.
3) Key facts and statistics (how to read them)
Official DHS reporting has described the operation as large-scale, multi-jurisdictional, and sustained. Reporting also describes a broad detention footprint across multiple states, with detainees moved among facilities based on bed space and classification.
Operational details in public materials include use of a regional staging site and, at least earlier in the operation, federalized National Guard involvement whose Chicago role was reported to have ended at the close of 2025. Readers should treat those deployment details as context for how quickly DHS can surge personnel.
DHS has also suggested the operation coincided with major crime declines in Chicago. Those claims may be politically salient, but they are not the same as legal proof. Crime trends can reflect many factors. Immigration courts generally decide removability and relief eligibility, not citywide causation.
Finally, detention “counts” vary because they often measure different subsets. Some numbers are snapshots tied to specific arrest cohorts. Others track custody at one moment in time. Others include people already removed or transferred. That is why two sources can both be “right,” yet look inconsistent.
4) Legal and enforcement dynamics (“screws tightening”)
The core pressure point: warrants and arrests
A major legal development reported in February 2026 is federal court action ordering release of certain detainees based on allegations of arrests without warrants, reportedly in violation of a longstanding consent decree. If a court finds arrests were unlawful, consequences can include release orders, suppression litigation, and potential civil-rights exposure.
In removal proceedings, suppression is not automatic. Immigration courts apply a narrower suppression doctrine than criminal courts. Still, suppression may be available for egregious Fourth Amendment violations or widespread regulatory violations, depending on facts and circuit law. The Supreme Court recognized limits but left room for suppression in some situations. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984). Standards can differ by circuit.
Escalation signals and what they mean in practice
Public reporting has described plans for increased staffing and renewed enforcement posture. Practically, that can mean more encounters, broader sweeps, and more detention transfers. It can also mean faster initiation of proceedings, which shortens preparation time.
USCIS and NTA issuance: why benefits applicants feel the squeeze
A key structural shift is the expanded role of USCIS in issuing Notices to Appear (NTAs). An NTA is the charging document that starts removal proceedings in immigration court. See INA § 239; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15.
When USCIS issues an NTA, it can follow a denied application, a status violation, or fraud findings. USCIS can also refer cases to ICE. This matters because people who thought they were “just” in a benefits process may suddenly be in EOIR court.
Civil enforcement vs. criminal prosecution
Most immigration arrests are civil. That means there is no right to government-appointed counsel in immigration court. See INA § 292. It also means criminal procedural protections do not always apply in the same way.
5) Impact on affected individuals (and why due process issues matter)
Advocates and some oversight letters have disputed whether those arrested match the government’s “criminal” narrative, pointing to claims that only a minority had prior convictions. DHS has not adopted that characterization in its public framing.
Regardless of the numbers, the legal relevance is case-by-case. Immigration consequences turn on each person’s record, entries, status history, and relief eligibility.
Detention conditions and access to counsel
Conditions allegations—like those reported concerning the Broadview Processing Center—typically involve medical care, overcrowding, language access, attorney visitation, and transfers that disrupt representation. Transfers can also make it harder to gather evidence and present witnesses.
Deaths in custody reported during the operation’s timeframe underscore why attorneys push for medical documentation, custody review, and prompt bond litigation. Causation and responsibility are fact questions. They should not be assumed from timing alone.
Community-wide ripple effects also matter. When parents disappear into detention, families often miss hearings, school, and medical appointments. That can later affect relief applications that depend on stable documentation.
Warning: Missing a court hearing can lead to an in absentia removal order. Motions to reopen exist, but deadlines are strict and fact-driven. See INA § 240(b)(5); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23.
6) Defense strategy: the relief options and how to build the record
A. Immediate goal: release from custody (bond or release on recognizance)
For many detainees, the first relief goal is release. In many cases, attorneys pursue:
- Bond before an Immigration Judge, when eligible. See INA § 236(a).
- Custody redetermination if circumstances change.
- Habeas in federal court in limited situations, especially for unlawful detention claims or where immigration-court custody review is unavailable.
Eligibility basics: Some people face mandatory detention bars, such as certain criminal grounds under INA § 236(c). Others are subject to expedited removal or reinstatement, which can change custody pathways.
Evidence that typically helps:
- Stable address and long-term residence proof.
- Family ties and caregiving responsibilities.
- Employment history and community letters.
- Criminal court dispositions showing non-violent outcomes, dismissals, or compliance.
- Medical records when health is at issue.
Factors that weaken bond cases:
- Prior removal orders, absconding history, or missed hearings.
- Recent arrests, even without convictions.
- Allegations of gang affiliation, especially if supported by documentation.
Deadline: Bond hearings can move quickly after detention. Families should collect identity documents, proof of address, and criminal dispositions immediately.
B. Suppression and termination strategy: challenging the arrest and evidence
Where warrantless arrests are credibly alleged, attorneys may consider motions to suppress or terminate. These motions usually require detailed declarations, witness statements, and documentary support.
What must be shown (in many jurisdictions):
- An egregious constitutional violation, or
- A regulatory violation that undermined fundamental fairness.
Evidence that typically helps:
- A detailed sworn statement about the encounter.
- Any video footage, neighbor witnesses, or time-stamped messages.
- FOIA records where available, though timing may be slow.
- Medical records showing injury, if force is alleged.
- Proof of where the arrest occurred and whether consent was given.
Because standards vary, counsel will tailor arguments to circuit case law and local immigration court practice.
C. Long-term relief in removal proceedings
Release alone does not end the case. Many people must also pursue relief, such as:
- Asylum, withholding, and CAT, when fear-based claims exist. See INA § 208; INA § 241(b)(3).
- Cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents and nonpermanent residents. See INA § 240A.
- Adjustment of status through a family or employment petition, if eligible.
- Prosecutorial discretion requests, including administrative closure or dismissal, where DHS policies and local practice allow.
Bars and disqualifiers to flag early:
- Certain criminal convictions and aggravated felonies can bar relief.
- The asylum one-year deadline may apply. See INA § 208(a)(2)(B).
- Prior removal orders can trigger reinstatement bars.
Realistic expectations (without promises)
Some detainees may obtain bond or release, especially with strong community ties and low flight-risk indicators. Others may be held without bond due to statutory bars or serious allegations. Suppression and termination claims can succeed in narrow circumstances, but they are highly fact-dependent and vary by circuit.
The most reliable takeaway is practical: early attorney involvement improves evidence collection, preserves deadlines, and reduces the chance that a fast-moving custody transfer derails the case.
Where to verify claims and documents
Primary sources are the best starting point:
- DHS and ICE press releases and updates at dhs.gov and ice.gov.
- EOIR practice information at justice.gov/eoir.
- Statutes and regulations at law.cornell.edu.
When comparing documents, confirm the time window, the definition of “arrest,” and whether figures describe a subset or the full operation.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources:
