Feds Seek to Block Restrictive Order Limiting Use of Force Against Protesters, Journalists
The Trump administration is making a last-ditch effort to block an extraordinary court order that severely restricts federal agents' use of force against protesters and journalists during deportation operations in Chicago. The Justice Department on Monday submitted a 22-page motion to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking both a short-term stay and a longer-term stay pending appeal.
The motion argues that the lower court's order is "overbroad" and would put federal officers at risk, while also violating the separation of powers between the branches of government. The administration claims that Judge Sara Ellis took an overly broad interpretation of the complaint filed by journalists and protesters, transforming it into a judicial override of federal law enforcement operations in Chicago.
This move comes after Ellis issued a sweeping preliminary injunction last week, which prohibits agents from using "riot control weapons" against protesters or observers who pose no immediate threat, and restricts other forms of restraint. The order also requires agents to display identifying information more conspicuously.
The Justice Department has already faced criticism for its treatment of protesters and journalists during the "Operation Midway Blitz" campaign in Chicago. Ellis dismissed the government's claims that the city was plagued by violence, finding them "lacking credibility."
Opposing counsel noted that the agents involved in the case maintain their compliance with Ellis' orders, arguing that their actions are not hindered by following the injunction.
The appeals court is expected to rule on the administration's request, which would impact the lives of federal officers and the First Amendment rights of journalists and protesters.
The Trump administration is making a last-ditch effort to block an extraordinary court order that severely restricts federal agents' use of force against protesters and journalists during deportation operations in Chicago. The Justice Department on Monday submitted a 22-page motion to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking both a short-term stay and a longer-term stay pending appeal.
The motion argues that the lower court's order is "overbroad" and would put federal officers at risk, while also violating the separation of powers between the branches of government. The administration claims that Judge Sara Ellis took an overly broad interpretation of the complaint filed by journalists and protesters, transforming it into a judicial override of federal law enforcement operations in Chicago.
This move comes after Ellis issued a sweeping preliminary injunction last week, which prohibits agents from using "riot control weapons" against protesters or observers who pose no immediate threat, and restricts other forms of restraint. The order also requires agents to display identifying information more conspicuously.
The Justice Department has already faced criticism for its treatment of protesters and journalists during the "Operation Midway Blitz" campaign in Chicago. Ellis dismissed the government's claims that the city was plagued by violence, finding them "lacking credibility."
Opposing counsel noted that the agents involved in the case maintain their compliance with Ellis' orders, arguing that their actions are not hindered by following the injunction.
The appeals court is expected to rule on the administration's request, which would impact the lives of federal officers and the First Amendment rights of journalists and protesters.
... If they manage to block that order, it means cops are gonna be able to crack down on peaceful protests without consequences 
. That's just not right. I get that the admins might have had some valid concerns about the whole Operation Midway Blitz thing, but come on, you can't just use excessive force against ppl exercising their rights 
. As for the journalists, they're already kinda screwed in this country... 
. Can't we just chill and let people express themselves without the government breathing down their necks? 
. The feds trying to block a restraining order that limits their use of force against protesters and journalists is a major red flag 
. It's like they're saying, "Hey, we can just do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't get in the way of us doing our jobs" 
. Newsflash: using excessive force is never okay, especially when it comes to protecting people's rights and freedoms 
.
. The fact that Judge Sara Ellis took an overly broad interpretation of the complaint is not the issue here – it's about whether or not the government should be able to override established law enforcement protocols in the first place 
.
.
, this restriction on force use against protesters and journalists feels like a big step towards protecting those rights, but also kinda scary for the agents who have to follow it 
.
. It'll be interesting to see how the appeals court weighs in on this 
.
Can't have the cops running around with riot control weapons whenever someone protests... that's not freedom, that's oppression! 
And let's be real, if you're gonna follow the law, you gotta do it without hiding behind guns and batons... that's just not how we're gonna solve problems. 
& if they r really worried bout gettin hurt, maybe they shouldnt b out there
. If they need some extra powers to deal with protesters and journalists who are putting themselves at risk, then that's what they should get. I mean, can't you just imagine if the other way around happened? The media would be going crazy about how some judge is basically giving federal agents carte blanche to do whatever they want. It's all about balance, right? 
. It's like, yeah, we get it, you're trying to maintain order, but there are better ways to do it than beating people up.
. And if Judge Ellis is trying to protect those rights too much, can't she just scale back her orders a bit? It feels like she's just trying to make an example out of the Justice Department 
But what if some of those agents were doing it all wrong? Like, what if they're just using excessive force for no reason? 
. I mean, can you imagine if the media had no restrictions at all? It'd be chaos out there! 
Journalists need some guidelines so they don't just start stirring up trouble or getting in the way of real law enforcement work. And as for the protesters, come on, they're not above the law just because they're holding a sign 
.
. I mean, can you imagine if protesters were really getting violent and causing chaos? That would be a completely different story 
and make sure our rights aren't being trampled 
. Anyway, can't wait to see what the appeals court decides - hope it doesn't go to their advantage 
.
.
gotta stand up for freedom of speech & assembly, even if its uncomfortable 
. Judges gotta stand up for 1st Amendment rights, even if it means testing the limits of federal power 