7th Circuit Clips District Court's Wings on Chicago Immigration Enforcement

RedState 

Stop me if you've heard this one: District court judge gets out a ways over his/her skis; appellate court says, "Whoa, Nelly!" 

We got another installment of just that on Wednesday afternoon as the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Trump administration's request for a stay pending appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction in Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, which is essentially a companion case to the one involving National Guard deployment in Illinois, but focuses primarily on the response of federal personnel to protesters who've been setting up shop outside the Broadview, Illinois, ICE facility for weeks now.

We saw a similar response from the appellate court as to the temporary restraining order (TRO) and subsequent modifications to it issued by Northern District of Illinois Judge Sara Ellis in October. The 7th Circuit granted the administration's request for a writ of mandamus as to the portion of Ellis' modified TRO directing Customs and Border Patrol Chief Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino to appear in court at 5:45 p.m. every weekday “to report on the use of force activities for each day."

Subsequently, Ellis granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the case, again with extraordinarily broad proscriptions. The administration appealed that, as well, and sought a stay of Ellis' injunction pending appeal. In granting that request, the 7th Circuit was careful to note that it wasn't ruling out the propriety of some injunctive relief — merely determining that the injunction Ellis entered was overly broad:

Defendants are likely to succeed on the merits. The preliminary injunction entered by the district court is overbroad. In no uncertain terms, the district court’s 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. Further, the order requires the enjoined parties to submit for judicial review all current and future internal guidance, policies, and directives regarding efforts to implement the order—a mandate impermissibly infringing on principles of separation of powers on this record. Finally, the district court’s order is too prescriptive. For example, it enumerates and proscribes the use of scores of riot control weapons and other devices in a way that resembles a federal regulation.

The court noted additional concerns about the plaintiffs' standing and whether the matter remains justiciable in light of the lessening (or possible ceasing) of enforcement activities in the area. 

But it did caution about reading too much into this decision:

Do not overread today’s order. Our concerns about the substantial overbreadth of the district court’s injunction lead us to stay it pending appeal, which we will expedite. But we have not concluded that preliminary relief is precluded. Acting on a very compressed timeline, the district court has developed voluminous and robust factual findings. Those findings may support entry of a more tailored and appropriate preliminary injunction that directly addresses the First and Fourth Amendment claims raised by these plaintiffs.

Still, this is a win for the administration and yet another example of a district court overstepping its bounds.