The circuit court called the district judge’s ruling “constitutionally suspect” and said it infringed on the separation of powers on record.
The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel vacated a lower-court ruling that placed use-of-force restrictions on federal immigration officers. Protestors and journalists brought the lawsuit claiming Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights. District Court Judge Sara Ellis had issued a preliminary injunction and broadly restricted the use of force tactics, such as tear gas, pepper balls, and crowd control weapons, by federal officers working across the Northern District of Illinois.
The majority wrote, “Defendants are likely to succeed on the merits. The preliminary injunction entered by the district court is overbroad. In no uncertain terms, the district court’s order enjoins an expansive range of defendants, including the President of the United States, the entire Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, and anyone acting in concert with them. The practical effect is to enjoin all law enforcement officers within the Executive Branch.“
The panel concluded, “The district court’s order is too prescriptive. For example, it enumerates and proscribes the use of scores of riot control weapons and other devices in a way that resembles a federal regulation.“
The circuit court determined that the previous ruling was “constitutionally suspect” and said that it “infringes on the separation of powers.“
The plaintiffs have withdrawn their lawsuit and Judge Ellis dismissed it without prejudice, which means a class-action suit could be refiled at a later date.
As the Lord Leads, Pray with Us…
- For judges across the nation to be prudent as they hear cases regarding ICE operations.
- For officials in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security as they seek to uphold the law and the Constitution.
- For protestors to obey the law and demonstrate within the peaceful constraints of the First Amendement protections of free speech.
Sources: MSN, Fox News, Red State, Newsmax
