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
People Involved
Organizations Involved
ICE is the Trump administration’s primary tool for interior immigration enforcement and mass deportation.
DHS oversees ICE and is fighting to preserve broad detention powers in Chicago and nationwide.
NIJC is the litigation engine challenging ICE’s Chicago raids and documenting alleged abuses.
The ACLU’s Illinois affiliate turned community outrage over ICE raids into a binding federal decree.
The Seventh Circuit is the referee deciding how far one district judge can go in policing ICE.
Timeline
-
Seventh Circuit blocks mass releases, keeps decree
LegalIn 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.
-
Appeals court hears detainee-release fight
LegalThe 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.
-
Seventh Circuit issues temporary stay
LegalA 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.
-
Court orders review and potential release of hundreds
LegalAt 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.
-
Judge finds ICE in violation, extends decree
LegalJudge 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.
-
Operation Midway Blitz begins in Chicago
EnforcementDHS 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.
-
ICE declares itself free of decree
LegalICE’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.
-
Consent decree approved, limiting ICE arrests
LegalA 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.
-
Castañon Nava lawsuit filed
LegalPlaintiffs and two community groups sue DHS and ICE in federal court, alleging racial profiling and unlawful warrantless arrests in Chicago-area raids.
-
ICE’s Operation Keep Safe sparks lawsuit
EnforcementICE 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
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.
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.
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
2018–2022What 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
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
2007–2017What 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
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
2019–2021What 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
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.