In the fall of 2025, federal immigration authorities launched 'Operation Midway Blitz' in Chicago, leading to protests and clashes outside an ICE detention center. Plaintiffs, including journalists and protesters, sued federal officials alleging violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights due to the use of tear gas and other crowd control tactics. The district court entered a sweeping preliminary injunction that regulated all federal immigration enforcement efforts across the Northern District of Illinois and required daily reporting from a DHS official. While the government appealed, the plaintiffs later moved to voluntarily dismiss the case, stating that the enforcement operation had ended and no further unconstitutional behavior had been reported. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice and decertified the class, prompting the government to seek vacatur of the injunction and dismissal of the appeal.
The Seventh Circuit granted the government's motion to vacate the district court's order and dismiss the appeal based on the Munsingwear doctrine. The court found the case moot because the plaintiffs, who had prevailed below, voluntarily sought dismissal after the underlying enforcement operation ceased, leaving no live case or controversy. Even if not strictly moot, the court exercised its equitable supervisory power to vacate the order to prevent it from having preclusive effects in future litigation. The opinion criticized the district court's injunction as overbroad, noting it effectively placed the judiciary in the position of a supervisor over the Executive Branch, infringing on separation of powers. Additionally, the court expressed concern that the district court's dismissal of the case without prejudice, contrary to the plaintiffs' request for dismissal with prejudice, allowed for the potential refiling of claims based on the same unreviewed factual and legal findings. The court emphasized that vacatur was necessary to ensure that the district court's potentially flawed findings on standing and credibility did not bind future litigants.
The district court's preliminary injunction is vacated and removed from the record, meaning it cannot be cited as precedent or used to support future claims. The appeal is dismissed, and the underlying case is dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to theoretically refile, though the vacatur prevents them from relying on the previous court's findings. The decision signals to district courts that they must avoid issuing sweeping injunctions against the Executive Branch that infringe on separation of powers and must strictly adhere to Rule 23 procedures when managing class actions.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download