There has been an ongoing struggle between district court judges and the Trump Administration over a variety of policies. In the first year, some district court judges issued nationwide injunctions that were largely rejected by the Supreme Court and appellate courts. These conflicts have continued and the intracourt tensions have increased. That was evident with the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which delivered a virtual haymaker in reversing Judge Sara Ellis, an Obama nominee. The panel criticized Ellis for limiting the operation of federal officers in Chicago, saying that she “effectively established the district court as the supervisor of all Executive Branch activity in the city of Chicago.”
Protesters and journalists went to Ellis to restrain “Operation Midway Blitz.” They challenged the conduct of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the First and Fourth Amendments, specifically raising the use of tear gas and other chemical agents. Judge Ellis issued a preliminary injunction described by the panel as “sweeping”: “It enjoined all law enforcement officers in the Northern District of Illinois, as well as federal agencies and the Secretary of the DHS, from using certain crowd control tactics and tools. It also required the defendants to regularly inform the court of its efforts at implementing the injunction.”
That included requirements that U.S. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino report to her daily to brief her on his activities. The panel found that her order “impermissibly infringes on separation of powers principles.”
Notably, this order came after various district courts were reversed on such orders, but Judge Ellis went forward with another attempt at a sweeping injunction. She reinforced her order by certifying a class action and then including 170 pages of fact-finding in her long order.
After the operations ended, the plaintiffs were not eager to have the case reviewed on appeal. While the plaintiffs asked for dismissal with prejudice, Judge Ellis refused. She instead dismissed without prejudice and departed from standard rules on such dismissals. This was meant to allow a resumption of litigation.
That led to an interesting (and telling) issue for the Seventh Circuit. Ordinarily, the court would have simply declared the case moot (as Judge Frank Easterbrook would have in dissent). However, two judges clearly felt that Judge Ellis needed a corrective measure on appeal for her future handling of such cases:
“The district court’s order may also spawn adverse legal consequences. Because the district court dismissed this case without prejudice—against the plaintiffs’ unopposed request for a dismissal with prejudice—any class members or the lead plaintiffs could refile these claims tomorrow. They could ask the district court to reinstate a near-identical preliminary injunction, adopting the facts and legal reasoning from the district court’s order.”
It reaffirmed that Judge Ellis’s order was “overbroad” and “constitutionally suspect.”
It made clear that “federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch” and that the district court “likely abused its discretion by issuing such a sweeping injunction.”
The decision not to simply dismiss this case was clearly meant to send a message not simply to Judge Ellis but also to other such judges who are exceeding their authority in seeking to limit Trump policies and programs.
Here is the opinion: Chicago Headline Club v. Noem
Let’s start a pool to see which District Court judges continue to disregard Appellate and SCOTUS rulings against them, and how quickly the DCs give those higher courts the proverbial middle finger and continue their unconstitutional rulings without threat of sanction. Taking bets now.
Fascist judges are no less Fascist. They get a lifetime appointment, are waited on hand-and-foot all day in their courtrooms, and believe themselves to be gods. Fascists think they can use their allies on the bench to bludgeon the Trump administration, knowing that conservative judges show much more restraint when dealing with rogue leftist presidents like Obama and Biden.
This is interesting on the idea of the dismissal. The Judge triggered the review by departing from the norm. Seems to me that Circuit Courts are tiring of District Courts from playing politics. Regardless of where one stands on the ICE issue or even if it is Constitutional. The question is where does a judge cross the line. Maybe I am being a bit sarcastic, but it seems to me that Obama and Biden judges seem to be disproportional in ruling against Trump. I am not saying Clinton or Bush judges do not because they have, but not in the numbers. It tells me that there is a real possibility one side or the other is playing politics.
At the end of the day, policy is policy and Courts should judge on its legality and not whether it is good politics. People of good character can have very intense disagreements over policy. It does not make it unconstitutional because one disagrees with the policy.
Judges should keep that in mind.
To many, the Federal District judges everywhere have been disappointing from every viewpoint, particularly adhering to the written law. They seem only able to twist, turn, and meander around the law, guided by their cognitive biases – and latent activism.
That sounds like how many feel about SCOTUS
The blatant difference is that the SCOTUS adheres to the constitution while the activist prog judges adhere to agenda and ideology. The statue at the Supreme Court is depicted blindfolded for a reason – no ideologies or activism is permitted (but that goes against the very grain of why that prog judge was selected and appointed .
SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, often based on their own biases and desired outcomes. Did the Constitution really say corporations are people like the Court decided in Citizens United? Throughout history, Congress has passed multiple Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts ant SCOTUS has gutted all of them. SCOTUS was invented to protect the property and rights of a specific group of people and ultimately, never fails to do so.
You feel, you feel….You’re just angry because only a minority of the Supreme Court justices are unqualified and are DEI members.
Trump’s SOTU addressed this, what part of these people are crazy did you miss.
They keep the ship righted for the most part and interpret law based upon the founding principles of Constitutional law, period.
The salient question to me is whether the District Courts of Appeal have any way to discipline a judge in a lower level Fed court beyond mere chastisement. Does the 7th have any further recourse should Ellis continue to ignore them and pursue unconstitutional remedies? Can they at least see to it that she is not assigned any future cases that hold the potential for her to vastly exceed her authority, as she has in the recent past? Otherwise, if Ellis doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution, why should she care about what the 7th justices think of her rulings?
She can be impeached by the House and a trial would be held in the Senate.
While that is true, we know it will never happen and will only make the progs more adamant in their behaviors. The SCOTUS needs to treat apostasy to the constitution as an immediate grounds for permanent removal from any bench.
Turley claims plaintiffs were “not eager” to have the case reviewed. In reality, the plaintiffs sought dismissal because the specific federal operation (Operation Midway Blitz) had ended. There was no longer a live controversy” to litigate, making the case moot. Continuing the appeal would have wasted judicial resources on an operation that no longer existed.
This is backed up by the rules Turley failed to mention,
Rule 41(a)(2): Federal judges have broad discretion to dismiss without prejudice to ensure plaintiffs aren’t unfairly barred from future claims.
The reason why the Trump Department of Justice wanted to dismiss with prejudice was because they specifically wanted to bar these journalists and protesters from ever filing again, even if federal agents committed future constitutional violations.
The judge noted that a dismissal with prejudice could have “sweeping” unintended consequences for the class of journalists and clergy she was bound to protect.
Turley focuses on “separation of powers” because he wants you to ignore the 233-page factual record where Judge Ellis found that federal officials repeatedly lied, a fact readily apparent to other courts besides Ellis and also that they participated in unwarranted brutality.
Dismissing without prejudice wasn’t about “resuming” this specific case; it was about making sure that if those same officers returned and used the same illegal tactics, the victims wouldn’t be legally blocked from seeking a new injunction.
George you just repeated what Turley wrote.
I didn’t ‘repeat’ him; I quoted him to show exactly where his logic failed. If you can’t tell the difference between a summary and a critique, you’re the one struggling with the ‘concept flying over your head.’ Now, do you have a response to the fact that the court ruled on a moot case, or are you just going to keep auditing my word choice?
Someone needs to tell this to be New Jersey governor
“Someone needs to tell this to be New Jersey governor”
Helicopter Ho doesn’t want advice, particularly of any reasonable variety.
It doesn’t matter! She over reached her authority under the Constitution. The “sweeping” consequences she feared were not up to her and that’s the problem w these federal district judges, their politics clouds the separation of powers under the Constitution.
X conveniently misses the point again. The point is that District judges don’t get to run the country.
This judge obviously didn’t like the fact that the people elected Donald Trump to do the job and not her.
She doesn’t respect the will of the people and neither does X. X says, don’t you know a superior human being when you see one? Don’t you understand that us superior people because we are indeed superior should have a greater vote than the masses of the unwashed? Prima Donna at its finest example. Oh stop he exclaims. Peel me a narcissistic grape.
Thinkitthrough, you STILL don’t think things through do you?
You pivoted to a bizarre ‘superiority’ rant because you can’t actually argue against the factual record of federal misconduct. No one is claiming a ‘superiority’; I’m claiming that no branch of government is above the law. You’re so fixated on the ‘narcissism’ of a judge doing her job that you’re advocating for an Executive with zero accountability. That’s not a republic; that’s a monarchy. I’ll stick to the Constitution.
In a constitutional republic, the ‘will of the people’ is expressed through the Bill of Rights, which exists specifically to prevent a President—elected or not—from using federal force to bypass the Fourth Amendment. A District Judge isn’t competing with the Executive; she is acting as a legal guardrail. Her job. Calling judicial oversight ‘narcissism’ is just a convenient way to ignore that even an elected leader is also bound to follow the law.
If Republicans had evolved to have actual spinal columns… the House and Senate could reign in these judges by legislation and funding.
And get the veter ID bill through
What did the judge do wrong? Turley is leaving out a lot of context in this case.
Leaving out? Space limitations maybe? Or just for brevity?
Legislation? With what majority?
There are only two ways to stop this JUDICIAL WARFARE. Impeachment or a Constitutional Amendment to reign in the Judiciary. Neither will happen. So these left-wing judges will continue, along with their Democratic allies, their assault on our Republic. Anything to hamper President Trump.
“Impeachment or a Constitutional Amendment to reign in the Judiciary. Neither will happen. ”
Impeachment will never happen: Congresscritters (even the ones who craft positions that seem to support the original intent of the Constitution) lack both guts and incentive to do anything about this, or, for that matter, pretty much any other issue that would incur a measure of actual political risk. However, an Article V Convention could easily correct his problem, among others. 20 states (of the 34 required) have already passed a resolution calling for such a Convention; Illinois and Ohio are holding, or are about to hold, hearings regarding their own resolutions. You will need to fix up the punctuation in the link below for more information (this site has an unfortunate history of removing references and links on this subject)
#$#c*o*n*v*e*n*t*i*o*n*o*f*s*t*a*t*e*s*DOT*c*o*m#$#
Amending the constitution is impossible without bipartisan support. You need 2/3 of each house of Congress, plus majorities in both houses of at least 38 state legislatures. That is simply impossible without significant support from Democrats. And obviously they will not support reining in the Democrats in robes.
Even the convention path doesn’t significantly help, since it still takes a majority in both houses of Congress to call the convention, and you then still need majorities in both houses of 38 states. Democrats would filibuster the motion to call the convention in the first place.
Or some liberal judge would say that the government can’t call a convention of states.
http://termlimitsforuscongress.com
go there and vote to demand that your state call for an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution to term limit congress, both houses. The current bill demand 12 years max for House and Senate, 6 terms for house 2 for senators. Curent member could serve out their terms but be barred from running again.
A Federal District Judge in Oregon has just entered a similar order in attempting to limit Federal Officers in using crowd control measure such as tear gas. I wonder if water cannons would be ok. The water might improve the hygiene of the demonstrators as well as requiring a change of clothing. That might improve the local scenery as well as be beneficial to the local flora.
Wonder if the 9th Circuit will invalidate this order.
These orders are so shockingly ultra vires that Trump should just order his employees to ignore them.
Any judge crossing the separation of powers line should be ignored with prejudice
Turley applauds the Seventh Circuit for issuing a ‘corrective measure,’ yet the dissent rightly pointed out that the case was moot. By reaching out to rebuke a judge on a case that no longer had a live controversy, the appellate court engaged in the very ‘judicial activism’ Turley usually condemns. Preserving the right to refile (dismissal without prejudice) isn’t a power grab; it’s a safeguard to ensure that if the Executive resumes the same unconstitutional tactics, the victims aren’t barred from seeking immediate relief.
NO X
Words matter. Upper courts telling lower courts they crossed the line is NOT called judicial activism – it is the opposite.
It is an effort to correct judicial activism.
Judicial activism is when courts cross the line – when they go beyond the law and constitution into making policy.
Neither judges not illegal immigrants – individually or as plantiffs in a class action control US immigration law or its enforcement.
Congress does so through constittutional laws. The executive then executes those laws as written.
For all the lefts efforts to obstract Trump’s enforcement of immigration laws – not once has any courts rulling that the administration acted outside lawful or constitutional authority been upheld.
The batting average of the left is 0.000 on Immigration so far.
But like the judge in this case you have REPEATEDLY tried to steal bases.,
Unfortunately the ONLY consequences for lawless judges is rebuke by higher courts and impeachment. And the latter is extremely difficult.
You hit it out of the park John Say.
Huh, no, he did not.
Huh, yes, he did.
No, he didn’t Diogenes. Per John Say’s own words, “Words matter,” Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to actual ‘cases or controversies.’ Once a case is moot, the law requires the appellate court to vacate and dismiss—nothing more.
The Actual law, the words John Say believes matter, are being ignored.
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution… and Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…”
If a case is no longer “live”—meaning it has become moot—it ceases to be a “Case” or “Controversy” under the law. Therefore courts only need to dismiss it. Adding a ‘rebuke’ or ‘massege’ goes beyond what is required.
If you disagree with these facts offer a refutation of your own. I didn’t see John offer one. He’s usually inclined to offer lengthy ones to challenges like this.
“Therefore courts only need to dismiss it. Adding a ‘rebuke’ or ‘massege’ goes beyond what is required.”
What is your point?
John Say, you’re wrong as usual.
Judge Frank Easterbrook noted in his dissent that once the plaintiffs dismissed their suit and the government withdrew its appeal, there was no longer a “case or controversy” for the court to resolve under Article III. Using a dead case to “send a message” to a lower court judge is, by definition, an activist overreach.
John, they are not “stealing bases.” The 233-page factual record in the Chicago case documented “unwarranted brutality” by federal agents and found that high-ranking officials “repeatedly lied” under oath to justify their actions. When the Executive Branch uses chemical agents against journalists and clergy on domestic soil, the court isn’t “stealing bases”; it is acting as a constitutional check on lawless state conduct. It’s literally the court’s job.
Also, the Bill of Rights exists specifically to limit government control. The First and Fourth Amendments do not disappear simply because a “surge operation” is in progress. A judge requiring federal officers to wear body cameras and display ID is not “making policy”—it is ensuring that those who execute the law are themselves subject to. That’s not overreach in any form.
In this case it’s the higher court that engaged in judicial activism.
John Say, Turley called the appellate ruling a “haymaker,” he used the unusual procedural move to “show” the lower court was overreaching. Usually, when a case is moot, the appeals court simply dismisses it. In this case, the appellate court used a moot case as a way to “send a message” to a lower court judge— which was an act of judicial activism itself that contradicts Turley’s usual position on courts exceeding their limited authority. He’s being disingenuous.
Everyone on here needs to quit arguing with stupid. They will not change. in the end, it will be them or us. You’re gonna be the hammer or the nail
John, your claim of a ‘0.000 batting average’ is a textbook argument from ignorance. Just because you aren’t aware of the administration’s losses or just want to ignore them—like the D.C. Circuit upholding TPS protections for Haitians on March 6 or the Massachusetts ruling against third-country deportations—doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. You’re shouting about ‘lawless judges’ while ignoring that the appellate court broke its own rules on mootness just to make a political point.
In federal law, courts lose jurisdiction when a case is moot.
By reaching out to “send a message” rather than dismissing the case as required by Article III, the appellate court engaged in the exact “lawless” behavior you oppose.
John Say,
Well said.
If you did not see it yesterday, the slow and dumb one announced it uses AI in it’s responses. Normally I say just scroll past as X’s comments are not worth reading. Now, knowing X has to use AI, X’s comments are that much more worthless.
Just scroll past.
Upstatefarmer, your obsession with the tool is just a distraction from your inability to refute the facts. Using AI to refine a rebuttal doesn’t make it ‘worthless’—it makes it precise. I use it to ensure my arguments are factually grounded and logically sound, which is clearly more than you can say for your personal attacks. If my points are so easy to dismiss, why are you still ‘scrolling past’ while leaving a comment that contributes absolutely zero to the actual topic?”
Please, no one on here needs to inject facts into what ex is saying. You can’t win an argument was stupid.
Nobody has injected any facts into this discussion besides X. I have not seen anyone offer a rebuttal to his arguments. Only ad hominem attacks and insults. X is the only one engaging in a discussion with substance to the topic. Who has proven him/her wrong?
John, let’s apply your own definition of lawlessness. Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to actual ‘cases or controversies.’ Once a case is moot, the law requires the appellate court to vacate and dismiss—nothing more. By reaching out to deliver a ‘message’ in a dead case, the Seventh Circuit abandoned judicial restraint for judicial activism. They didn’t just correct a line; they crossed one. If you’re truly against judges ‘going beyond the law,’ you should be condemning the appellate court’s overreach.
“The batting average of the left is 0.000 on Immigration so far.”
“Federal courts have ordered the return of multiple deported immigrants — only two of whom, Kilmar Armando Ábrego García and Jordin Melgar‑Salmeron, have been publicly identified. The remaining individuals were not named in court filings or media reports.”
Media outlets only report names when lawyers or family’s consent.
Note: Despite a court order for his return, the government has not yet returned Jordin Melgar-Salmeron, one of hundreds of cases where the government has disobeyed court orders. The “left” isn’t batting 0.000, but the tyrants refuse to obey the law.
Now for a live report from our reporter George? George, who are your sources for that incisive report? George: I made it up.
Can you cite the exact unconstitutional action that’s been taken by PQTUS just one we’ll wait. Me and the crickets
The appellate court told Democrat judges and their obsessive litigants to stop relitigating SUBSTANTIVELY DECIDED cases. These lawyers’ tricks to keep decided cases in litigation are not justice; they’re obstruction. And you know what? Democrats know it’s obstruction and they love it.
Democrat obstructionism; it’s a thing. The rebuke of the lower court was justified and long overdue.
“who are exceeding their authority in seeking to limit Trump policies and programs.” And the DC judges will continue their illegal actions ad infinitum without regard to appellate courts or SCOTUS. So what’ s the solution?
Come On Man! Don’t those Colonialist Appeals Judges believe in Leftist Gurl Power? A true Leftist Black Robe Illuminati like Ellis will surely find a contorted legal position to re-establish control over the Patriarchy of Orange Man Bad so the shining dump of Chicago can be Wild and Free again!
Someone is very drunk this morning.
Sorry, but when are these CRIMINAL Judges punished?
Being a Judge…doesn’t mean you aren’t a CRIMINAL…or decider of what is LEGAL!
Criminal judges? That’s sounds as stupid as judge Ells’ decision.
For your flight back home JT:
Adam Smith’s Moral Authority
By: Daniel Klein ~ March 9, 2026
https://lawliberty.org/adam-smiths-moral-authority/
Adam Smith’s Gift
By: Helen Dale ~ March 3, 2026
https://lawliberty.org/forum/adam-smiths-gift/
What Does It Mean to Be Madisonian?
By: Jay Cost – Gerald R. Ford Nonresident Senior Fellow ~ March 10, 2026
[Link] aei.org/research-products/report/what-does-it-mean-to-be-madisonian/
Wars Abroad Lead to Suppression at Home
By: Brandan Buck ~ Mar 10, 2026
[Link] theamericanconservative.com/wars-abroad-lead-to-suppression-at-home/
Judge Ellis just issued the following ruling, “Sorry, my bad”.