Activist Judge Orders 600+ Immigrants Released in Chicago – DHS Reacts

(CHICAGO, ILLINOIS) A federal judge in Chicago has ordered the release of more than 600 immigrants picked up in a recent multi-agency sweep, finding that agents conducted unconstitutional, warrantless mass arrests in violation of a standing court order. On November 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings ruled that arrests tied to Operation Midway Blitz breached the Fourth Amendment and a 2022 consent decree that requires agents to establish individualized probable cause and follow strict documentation rules during enforcement actions.

The ruling applies to 615 people arrested in Chicago and its suburbs, with immediate release ordered for 13 detainees and the remainder eligible for release on $1,500 bond, except those with serious criminal histories or prior removal orders. The order covers detainees being held in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky, and Kansas, and attorneys say the legal logic could shape outcomes in similar cases around the country. The Department of Homeland Security denounced the decision within hours. Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS assistant secretary, said in a statement:

“Now an ACTIVIST JUDGE is putting the lives of Americans directly at risk by ordering 615 illegal aliens be released into the community.”

Judge Jeffrey Cummings’s decision scrutinized how Operation Midway Blitz was planned and executed as a coordinated sweep by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection across Chicago neighborhoods and nearby towns. The court concluded that the arrests flowed from broad roundups rather than person-by-person determinations, undercutting constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures. The 2022 consent decree—entered after earlier litigation over mass enforcement practices—requires individualized probable cause, limits on home entries, and clear access to counsel. Lawyers for the detainees argued those terms were repeatedly ignored during the operation, and the judge agreed, barring agents from coercing detainees into signing voluntary departure forms and requiring access to legal representation going forward.

DHS responded with unusually sharp language aimed at the judge and the court’s core findings. McLaughlin said:

“At every turn, activist judges, sanctuary politicians, and violent rioters have actively tried to prevent our law enforcement officers from arresting and removing the worst of the worst.”

The agency has not yet detailed the steps it will take to comply with the ruling while it considers an appeal, but officials indicated they could seek a stay to pause releases while higher courts review the case. A DHS spokesperson said the department stands by its enforcement priorities and will continue to pursue people who, in the agency’s view, pose public safety risks. The department’s broader enforcement authorities and guidance are outlined by the Department of Homeland Security.

The decision drew praise from immigrant rights groups who said agents carried out warrantless dragnets that upended families and sowed fear in entire blocks. Mark Fleming, associate director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said:

“Communities throughout the Chicago area have been traumatized by ICE and other federal agents’ chaotic and violent actions in our neighborhoods in recent months, and potentially hundreds of families already have been permanently separated as a result of unlawful arrests and rapid deportations without due process.”

Fleming said attorneys scrambled to locate clients as transfers moved people across state lines within hours, making it hard for families and lawyers to keep track of where they were.

Two detainees who spoke through legal intermediaries described being arrested without warrants or clear explanations during Operation Midway Blitz. One said, “I asked for a warrant and the officer told me, ‘We don’t need one for immigration.’ I didn’t know that wasn’t true until now.” Another recounted:

“They lined everyone up and loaded them into two vans. They didn’t ask for names or IDs… just grabbed whoever was there.”

Attorneys said these accounts mirrored dozens of complaints that began arriving within days of the operation, including reports of stops at workplaces and apartment buildings where agents allegedly demanded identification from bystanders and loaded people into vehicles without checking records or confirming identities.

In the ruling, the court also criticized DHS record-keeping, with Judge Cummings described as “deeply troubled” that officials could not quickly produce a comprehensive list of where detainees were held, including cases in which people might already have been deported. Defense attorneys argued that this failure compounded due process concerns and made it impossible to conduct timely bond motions. The judge’s order directs the government to ensure access to counsel, bars pressure tactics around voluntary departure, and sets out the bond structure for those eligible under the court’s criteria.

The legal and political tension around the case was immediate. Critics of the ruling, including senior DHS officials, framed it as a judicial intrusion into frontline enforcement and a risk to public safety, repeatedly invoking the release of 615 illegal aliens as a stark example of courts undermining the government’s ability to detain and remove people they deem priorities. Supporters said the ruling reaffirmed constitutional limits in a climate shaped by the Trump–Vance administration’s more aggressive immigration raids. Immigration attorney Richard T. Herman said, “even in a crisis, the Constitution still applies,” adding in separate legal commentary:

“This ruling is one of the strongest judicial rebukes of mass immigration raids we’ve seen…”

The case also spotlights the reach of a federal consent decree negotiated in 2022 to rein in practices that courts had already found violated the Fourth Amendment. By tying the ruling to both the Constitution and the decree’s explicit terms—such as requirements for individualized probable cause and bans on blanket sweeps—the court set a template lawyers expect to cite in other jurisdictions. While the order directly covers detainees held in six Midwestern states, attorneys for those affected said they will seek similar relief in other courts where people were arrested under comparable operations. Unless an appellate court intervenes, immediate release for the 13 and bond eligibility for hundreds more will proceed, with bond hearings expected to crowd immigration court dockets in Chicago and neighboring cities in the weeks ahead.

On the ground, families and community groups braced for the patchwork process that follows a mass release. Legal aid organizations said they were preparing hotlines and clinic hours to help people gather documents for bond, coordinate transportation from far-flung detention centers, and connect with relatives who may be scattered across the six-state region. Because the order excludes people with serious criminal histories or earlier removal orders, case-by-case reviews will determine who is released and when, while those deemed ineligible could remain detained pending separate legal challenges. Defense attorneys said they plan to seek suppression of evidence in cases they believe stem from unconstitutional seizures, which could ripple into future proceedings and force the government to re-evaluate how it builds cases arising from Operation Midway Blitz.

Judge Jeffrey Cummings, appointed by former President Joe Biden, devoted substantial attention to how officers identified targets, approached buildings, and detained groups of people during the operation. Lawyers for the detainees argued that teams entered residential complexes and grabbed people without confirming identities or securing judicial warrants, violating the consent decree’s rules that mirror basic Fourth Amendment standards. The court’s order describes a series of steps federal agents must follow to avoid repeat violations, including a renewed emphasis on individualized probable cause and written documentation that can be audited if future challenges arise.

For Chicago’s immigrant communities, the ruling brought a mix of relief and lingering anxiety. Community advocates said some families had not heard from detained relatives for days and only learned they were being held in facilities in Indiana or Wisconsin after repeated calls to detention hotlines. Students missed school, employers reported sudden absences, and neighbors shared shaky smartphone videos of early-morning vans outside multi-unit buildings. The accounts were most vivid in areas where Operation Midway Blitz reportedly moved block to block, leaving people unsure whether to go to work or answer the door. Folklore about how to handle encounters—stay silent, don’t open, ask for a warrant—took on new urgency, while lawyers reminded residents that the judge’s order mandates access to counsel for those detained.

The DHS response has focused on portraying the ruling as a setback that will release people they argue should remain in custody while their cases are processed. McLaughlin’s statement, with its forceful language about an “ACTIVIST JUDGE,” underscored how the release of 615 illegal aliens has become a flashpoint in a political fight over enforcement methods, sanctuary policies, and the balance between national security and civil liberties. DHS said it will continue to prioritize threats to public safety and national security, and it has not ruled out revised tactics that it believes can withstand legal scrutiny. The agency may appeal, and if it secures a stay from an appellate court, the release schedule could stall, though attorneys for detainees said they will oppose any effort to delay compliance with the order.

Attorneys and former immigration officials said the ruling will likely reverberate through bond hearings and motions to suppress evidence, especially in cases where officers made arrests based on proximity rather than proof. They also expect internal reviews inside DHS to examine field guidance, warrant procedures, and the documentation required before large-scale operations begin. For a system already under strain, even small changes in procedure can slow arrests and increase the burden on immigration courts, which must handle bond decisions, merits hearings, and appeals linked to the fallout from Operation Midway Blitz.

Richard T. Herman and other lawyers said the court’s emphasis was not on dismantling enforcement but on enforcing rules the government had previously agreed to follow. They predict that, in the near term, the ruling will generate a surge of bond motions and emergency filings to secure compliance, while longer-term appellate litigation plays out. For detainees and their families, the immediate focus is practical: paying $1,500 bond where applicable, arranging transportation from detention centers sometimes several states away, and appearing at scheduled court dates that could now be months down the line.

As the legal process moves forward, the debate remains intensely personal for those who say they were caught up in sweeps without cause. “I asked for a warrant and the officer told me, ‘We don’t need one for immigration.’ I didn’t know that wasn’t true until now,” said one detainee, who added that confusion at the moment of arrest left him unsure where he was being taken. Another said:

“They lined everyone up and loaded them into two vans. They didn’t ask for names or IDs… just grabbed whoever was there,”

describing a scene that attorneys say will be central to upcoming suppression motions.

Whether the government appeals or seeks a stay, the judge’s order currently stands, setting in motion the release of hundreds of people arrested during Operation Midway Blitz. The ruling highlights a broader clash between an administration that favors mass-raid enforcement and a judiciary pressing for strict adherence to constitutional constraints and prior court orders. As DHS weighs its options and community groups mobilize, Chicago will be a test case for how quickly the system can process the releases, how immigration courts handle the influx of bond and suppression hearings, and whether similar challenges surface in other federal jurisdictions. For now, Judge Jeffrey Cummings’s ruling has set a clear marker: mass arrests without individualized probable cause cannot stand, and the courts will enforce that line, even against an operation of this scale.