Listen to the article
Federal Judge Restricts Border Patrol’s Use of Force in Chicago Immigration Crackdown
A federal judge in Chicago has imposed significant restrictions on federal agents’ use of force during immigration enforcement operations, following allegations that officers used excessive tactics against protesters and journalists.
U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued the preliminary injunction Thursday, stating that a top Border Patrol official leading the immigration crackdown repeatedly provided false information about threats posed by demonstrators and media representatives.
“I see little reason for the use of force that the federal agents are currently using,” Ellis declared during the ruling. “I don’t find defendants’ version of events credible.”
The court order specifically prohibits agents from employing certain riot control weapons, including tear gas and pepper balls, unless objectively necessary to prevent an immediate threat. It also forbids physical force against protesters and journalists, such as shoving them to the ground, and requires officers to issue two warnings before deploying riot control measures.
The injunction is a response to a lawsuit filed by news outlets and protesters who claim federal agents have used excessive force during what’s known as “Operation Midway Blitz.” The operation has resulted in more than 3,000 arrests and sparked heated confrontations throughout Chicago and its suburbs since September.
In her ruling, Ellis singled out Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol commander leading the operation, saying he “admitted that he lied” about being hit by a rock before throwing a gas canister into a crowd. She also noted that Bovino denied using force on an individual despite video evidence showing him “obviously tackling” the person to the ground.
“That would cause a reasonable person to think twice about exercising their fundamental rights,” Ellis said, referring to the actions of federal agents. The judge emphasized her order will prevent the “chilling of First Amendment right.”
The Department of Homeland Security quickly announced plans to appeal the ruling, characterizing it as “an extreme act by an activist judge that risks the lives and livelihoods of law enforcement officers.”
The Chicago crackdown is part of the Trump administration’s expanding federal intervention in Democratic-led urban areas. The operation has generated multiple legal challenges, including lawsuits that have forced improvements at a federal immigration facility that activists describe as a “de facto detention center” and actions blocking a National Guard deployment.
Thursday’s ruling largely extends an earlier temporary order requiring agents to wear badges and prohibiting certain riot-control techniques against peaceful protesters and journalists. After repeatedly admonishing federal officials for failing to comply with previous directives, Ellis added a requirement for body cameras.
Bovino, who heads a Border Patrol sector in El Centro, California, and previously led a similar operation in Los Angeles, oversees nearly 230 agents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection deployed to the Chicago area. He has consistently defended agents’ use of force while often avoiding direct questions about Border Patrol tactics during hours of closed-door depositions related to growing legal challenges.
During Wednesday’s eight-hour hearing, witnesses provided emotional testimony describing experiences with tear gas, being shot in the head with pepper balls while praying, and having guns pointed at them while recording agents in residential areas.
Leslie Cortez, a youth organizer in the Chicago suburb of Cicero, told the court that these encounters have created lasting anxiety. “I get really nervous because it just feels like I’m not safe,” Cortez testified. “And I question my safety when I go out.”
The court’s intervention represents a significant legal check on federal immigration enforcement tactics at a time of heightened tensions surrounding immigration policy nationwide.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
The judge’s ruling to restrict riot control tactics and physical force against journalists and protesters seems like a prudent move to protect civil liberties, even in the midst of immigration enforcement actions. Transparency and proportionality are key.
I agree, the court order appears to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and upholding constitutional rights. It will be important to monitor compliance with the new restrictions.
This case highlights the ongoing challenges around finding the right approach for immigration enforcement that respects the rule of law while also protecting the rights of citizens and the media. It’s a complex issue without easy solutions.
This case speaks to the ongoing tension between immigration enforcement and protecting constitutional rights. It’s a complex issue without easy answers, but maintaining transparency and proportionality in the use of force is critical.
I agree, this ruling underscores the need for federal law enforcement to be held accountable and to use the minimum force necessary to carry out their duties, even in sensitive situations.
While immigration enforcement is undoubtedly a sensitive and high-stakes issue, the alleged misrepresentation of threats by Border Patrol officials is very concerning. Maintaining public trust requires truthful and transparent leadership.
Exactly. Credibility and accountability for law enforcement are essential, even in the midst of difficult policy debates and enforcement operations.
This ruling seems like a reasonable attempt to curb excessive force and uphold the rights of journalists and protesters during immigration enforcement operations. Maintaining transparency and accountability for federal agents is important, even in sensitive situations.
I agree, the judge’s decision to restrict certain crowd control tactics appears justified based on the alleged false claims from Border Patrol officials. Ensuring appropriate use of force is critical for public trust.
It’s concerning to hear that a senior Border Patrol official provided misleading information about the threat level posed by protesters and media. Credibility and truthfulness should be paramount for law enforcement leadership.
Absolutely. If the allegations of false statements are accurate, that represents a serious breach of public trust that needs to be addressed.
The judge’s decision to restrict certain crowd control tactics used by federal agents seems like a reasonable attempt to balance public safety and civil liberties. Upholding the rights of journalists and protesters is crucial, even in the context of immigration enforcement.