Pull to refresh
Logo
Daily Brief
Following Why
Chicago’s ICE crackdown hits a wall of judges

Chicago’s ICE crackdown hits a wall of judges

Rule Changes
By Newzino Staff |

Trump’s ‘Operation Midway Blitz’ meets a reborn consent decree and a divided appeals court

December 11th, 2025: Seventh Circuit blocks mass releases, keeps decree

Overview

Federal agents flooded the Chicago area under “Operation Midway Blitz,” arresting thousands in a sweeping immigration crackdown. A little-known consent decree from an earlier ICE raid suddenly roared back to life, and a Chicago judge ordered hundreds of detainees released — until a divided appeals court slammed on the brakes.

At stake is more than the fate of roughly 450 people still in detention. The fight will decide how far the Trump administration can go in mass immigration raids without warrants, and whether a single class‑action settlement can meaningfully restrain federal enforcement tactics across six Midwestern states.

Key Indicators

≈4,000
Arrests in and around Operation Midway Blitz
Total arrests linked to the Chicago-area crackdown since summer 2025.
615
Detainees flagged for possible bond release
People Judge Cummings said could be freed if not true public-safety risks.
≈450
People still in ICE detention
Rough count of detainees remaining locked up after the appeals court stay.
6
States under the consent decree
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky and Kansas are covered.
2–1
Appeals court split
Margin of the Seventh Circuit decision blocking mass releases but keeping limits on ICE.

Interactive

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Sign Up

Debate Arena

Two rounds, two personas, one winner. You set the crossfire.

People Involved

Jeffrey I. Cummings
Jeffrey I. Cummings
U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Illinois (Overseeing Castañon Nava consent decree and Midway Blitz enforcement disputes)
Kristi Noem
Kristi Noem
Secretary of Homeland Security (Defending Trump’s aggressive immigration raids amid mounting court challenges)
Mark Fleming
Mark Fleming
Associate Director of Litigation, National Immigrant Justice Center (Lead counsel enforcing consent decree against DHS and ICE)
Michelle García
Michelle García
Deputy Legal Director, ACLU of Illinois (Co‑counsel challenging ICE raids and defending decree)
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
President of the United States (Driving aggressive national immigration crackdown in his second term)

Organizations Involved

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Federal Law Enforcement Agency
Status: Conducted Operation Midway Blitz and faces court limits on warrantless arrests

ICE is the Trump administration’s primary tool for interior immigration enforcement and mass deportation.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Federal Agency
Status: Defendant in Castañon Nava, appealing court limits on its officers

DHS oversees ICE and is fighting to preserve broad detention powers in Chicago and nationwide.

National Immigrant Justice Center
National Immigrant Justice Center
Legal Advocacy Nonprofit
Status: Co‑counsel enforcing consent decree and pushing detainee releases

NIJC is the litigation engine challenging ICE’s Chicago raids and documenting alleged abuses.

ACLU of Illinois
ACLU of Illinois
Civil Liberties Organization
Status: Co‑plaintiff and public voice against warrantless ICE arrests

The ACLU’s Illinois affiliate turned community outrage over ICE raids into a binding federal decree.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Federal Appellate Court
Status: Reviewing the scope of consent decrees and mass-release orders

The Seventh Circuit is the referee deciding how far one district judge can go in policing ICE.

Timeline

  1. Seventh Circuit blocks mass releases, keeps decree

    Legal

    In a 2–1 decision, the appeals court rules Cummings overstepped by ordering blanket releases for hundreds without individualized findings, but upholds and extends the consent decree’s limits on warrantless ICE arrests and documentation requirements through February.

  2. Appeals court hears detainee-release fight

    Legal

    The Seventh Circuit hears arguments on whether to keep blocking releases and how much power a district judge has to order class‑wide relief under an immigration consent decree.

  3. Seventh Circuit issues temporary stay

    Legal

    A three-judge Seventh Circuit panel temporarily halts the planned mass release of Midway Blitz detainees, calling Cummings’ order overbroad, but leaves the extended consent decree in place while it hears full arguments.

  4. Court orders review and potential release of hundreds

    Legal

    At a pivotal hearing, Cummings orders DHS to identify 615 detainees not subject to mandatory detention and says they should be released on bond or alternatives to detention unless shown to be serious public-safety risks, while 13 already-verified unlawful arrests get unconditional release.

  5. Judge finds ICE in violation, extends decree

    Legal

    Judge Cummings rules ICE repeatedly violated the consent decree through warrantless arrests, extends it to February 2, 2026, and orders ICE to produce detailed records on thousands of arrests since June.

  6. Operation Midway Blitz begins in Chicago

    Enforcement

    DHS launches Operation Midway Blitz, sending hundreds of federal agents into Chicagoland to arrest undocumented immigrants said to be criminals; by fall, thousands have been picked up.

  7. ICE declares itself free of decree

    Legal

    ICE’s principal legal advisor emails agents saying the consent decree has expired, and the agency stops following its limits — a move Judge Cummings later calls an “unequivocal” end to compliance.

  8. Consent decree approved, limiting ICE arrests

    Legal

    A federal judge approves the Castañon Nava settlement as a consent decree, forcing ICE to curb vehicle stops and warrantless arrests and to document probable cause for civil immigration arrests in six Midwestern states.

  9. Castañon Nava lawsuit filed

    Legal

    Plaintiffs and two community groups sue DHS and ICE in federal court, alleging racial profiling and unlawful warrantless arrests in Chicago-area raids.

  10. ICE’s Operation Keep Safe sparks lawsuit

    Enforcement

    ICE agents arrest more than 100 people across Chicago in Operation Keep Safe, using warrantless stops and home raids that later become the basis for the Castañon Nava class-action suit.

Scenarios

1

Appeals Court Narrows Decree, Restores Broad ICE Raid Powers

Discussed by: Conservative legal commentators, DHS-aligned analysts, outlets like Fox News and RedState

In this scenario, further Seventh Circuit proceedings, or a later Supreme Court ruling, accept DHS arguments that the consent decree and related injunctions improperly tie the executive’s hands on immigration enforcement. Judges trim back reporting mandates, loosen limits on collateral arrests and emphasize deference to the administration in civil immigration matters. ICE treats the decision as a green light to resume large, highly visible operations with fewer constraints, not only in Chicago but in other field offices citing the precedent.

2

Courts Lock In Strict Limits on Warrantless ICE Arrests

Discussed by: Civil-rights groups, immigration scholars, outlets like the Washington Post, AP, and legal blogs

Here, the consent decree survives intact on appeal, and subsequent rulings endorse Cummings’ basic view: that ICE cannot sidestep probable-cause rules or use pretextual stops to sweep up bystanders. While judges continue to frown on one-size-fits-all release orders, they affirm broad power to enforce settlements with detailed training, documentation and data‑sharing requirements. Chicago becomes a national template: other courts and jurisdictions borrow the model to rein in aggressive immigration raids, forcing DHS to build cases more carefully and accept fewer “collateral” arrests.

3

Case Becomes Testbed for Supreme Court’s Immigration-Deference Doctrine

Discussed by: Appellate litigators, law professors, policy shops like the Cato Institute and Brennan Center

If either side pushes the Castañon Nava fight to the Supreme Court, the justices could use it to clarify when and how lower courts may police federal immigration enforcement through consent decrees and class-wide injunctions. A ruling might tighten 8 U.S.C. § 1252’s limits on systemic relief, sharply curbing nationwide injunctions, or conversely bless robust judicial oversight when agencies ignore their own agreements. That would ripple far beyond Chicago, shaping future fights over raids, detention conditions and even border operations.

Historical Context

Castañon Nava Consent Decree and 2018 Chicago ICE Raids

2018–2022

What Happened

In May 2018, ICE’s Operation Keep Safe swept Latino neighborhoods around Chicago, using traffic stops, home raids and warrantless arrests. Residents sued in Castañon Nava v. DHS, alleging racial profiling and violations of federal arrest standards. After years of litigation, DHS agreed in 2022 to a consent decree limiting warrantless civil arrests and requiring new policies and training.

Outcome

Short Term

ICE scaled back vehicle stops and collateral arrests in the Chicago field office and adopted a warrantless-arrest policy.

Long Term

The decree created the legal lever advocates later pulled to challenge Operation Midway Blitz, showing how one settlement can restrain a future administration.

Why It's Relevant Today

This is the prequel: understanding the 2018 raids and decree explains why today’s Chicago crackdown is running into unusually strong legal resistance.

Melendres v. Arpaio and Sheriff Joe’s Immigration Sweeps

2007–2017

What Happened

In Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office ran traffic and street sweeps targeting Latino drivers under the banner of immigration enforcement. Latino residents sued in Melendres v. Arpaio, and a federal court found systematic racial profiling, imposed a sweeping injunction and appointed a monitor. Arpaio later was held in contempt for violating the court’s orders.

Outcome

Short Term

The sheriff’s immigration patrols were curtailed, and the county paid millions in legal fees and damages.

Long Term

The case became a cautionary tale that aggressive immigration policing can trigger long‑term federal oversight and personal legal risk for officials.

Why It's Relevant Today

Melendres shows how local or federal authorities who push immigration sweeps too far can end up under detailed court supervision, much like ICE now faces in Chicago.

Courthouse Arrest Restrictions in New York and Colorado

2019–2021

What Happened

As ICE began arresting immigrants at state courthouses, New York and Colorado passed laws and secured court orders sharply restricting civil immigration arrests in and around courthouses without judicial warrants. Judges framed these limits as necessary to protect access to justice and state sovereignty over their courts.

Outcome

Short Term

ICE scaled back high‑profile courthouse arrests in those states and shifted tactics.

Long Term

The episode established that even within federal immigration dominance, courts and states can carve out protected zones through targeted legal rules.

Why It's Relevant Today

These fights mirror Chicago’s consent decree: in each, narrow but potent rules on where and how ICE can arrest people became an important, durable check on broader enforcement campaigns.

16 Sources:
+10
Associated Press ABC News Washington Post Justia National Immigrant Justice Center ACLU of Illinois Chicago Sun-Times CBS Chicago Capitol News Illinois WTTW News Wikipedia Just Security U.S. District Court (via Justia) National Immigrant Justice Center National Immigrant Justice Center Washington Post