Trump lawyer claims dismissal of 'Midway Blitz' suit would block future use-of-force claims

Jason Meisner, Chicago Tribune on Dec 4, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

An attorney for the Trump administration claimed in court Thursday that the dismissal of a lawsuit over the use of force by immigration agents in Chicago would bar journalists and protesters from bringing similar claims of constitutional violations in the future.

In making her argument, Department of Justice attorney Elizabeth Hedges also told U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis that, contrary to media reports, Operation Midway Blitz has not ended and that the administration of President Donald Trump continues to carry out “lawful” immigration enforcement — though she declined to say when or if another surge in Border Patrol agents would hit the city.

Hedge’s position was immediately called out by Ellis, who said it was an incorrect statement of the law to say a dismissal with prejudice would give agents “free reign to violate a protester’s constitutional rights or the press’s constitutional rights ad infinitum.”

“And while it was the government’s position that no agent did anything illegal or unconstitutional, having watched those videos, and having read the reports, and having listened to the witnesses, I strongly disagree,” Ellis said.

The discussion came as Ellis took under consideration a request by the plaintiffs to dismiss the lawsuit that led to her landmark injunction last month limiting the use of tear gas and other chemical munitions against the media and protesters and also requiring agents to wear body cameras and clear identification. Both sides have agreed on the dismissal but not on what the effect of that would be.

The abrupt request to drop the lawsuit this week followed ominous signs from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted an emergency stay of Ellis’ injunctive relief pending appeal and said her ruling was “overbroad” and a violation of the separation of powers.

Because the lawsuit involved a certified class of plaintiffs, Ellis did not rule on the dismissal Thursday. Instead, she set a deadline of Jan. 8 for any class members to object to it. If none come forward, the suit would be dismissed on that date.

The 7th Circuit, meanwhile, has stayed any action at the appellate level pending the dismissal.

In filing its motion to dismiss on Tuesday, lawyers representing a consortium of media outlets and other plaintiffs spun it as a victory, saying alleged constitutional violations by immigration agents had fallen off the table as Operation Midway Blitz wound down last month.

The litigation also shed light on how the operation was carried out, through sworn depositions by Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino and other leaders as well as the release of body-camera footage showing agents deploying tear gas, pointing guns from passing cars and tackling civilians on the street.

Lead plaintiffs’ attorney Steve Art said the litigation exposed the brutality behind the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement and showed that its justifications for the use of force were “blatant lies.”

In a response filed Thursday, the government’s attorneys called the motion to dismiss a ‘throw in the towel” move and clear “procedural gamesmanship.”

“To be sure, if plaintiffs want to stop litigating and this court grants their motion for dismissal with prejudice, that is beyond defendants’ control,” the response said. “But this gambit should be seen for what it is.”

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that voluntary dismissal “is a perfect example of the bad faith litigation” brought by not-for-profit legal firms around the country.

“Plaintiffs were happy to sabotage the Trump administration when they were in front of an activist district judge, but the moment they must explain themselves to an appellate court they run for the hills,” McLaughlin said.

In court Thursday, Craig Futterman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the government’s position seemed to be that a dismissal would give them “a free hall pass to beat up press, protesters, priests months (or) years from now and commit other constitutional violations.”

“That is just not how the law works,” Futterman said.