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 only 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
Americans have encountered this problem before.
In the decades leading up to the Declaration of Independence, Britain expanded the use of vice-admiralty courts to enforce customs laws in the colonies. Merchants accused of smuggling were denied the protection of trial by jury and instead brought before Crown-appointed judges applying admiralty law. In many cases those judges were paid from the very fines and confiscations they imposed.
To the colonists this was not justice. It was the judicial system being used as an administrative tool of imperial policy.The grievance was so serious that it found its way directly into the Declaration of Independence: “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.”
The principle at stake then is the same principle that must guide us now. Courts exist to adjudicate disputes according to law, not to administer policy or supervise the operations of a coequal branch of government. The moment a court crosses that line it ceases to function as an impartial tribunal and begins to resemble an instrument of power.
The Seventh Circuit in this case invoked/employed a vacatur remedy and explained why/how this would best resolve the matter.
As pointed out, vacatur is an equitable remedy, and I understand the reasoning behind its application. Even without its cautious reference to mootness (see p. 10), the court appears to adequately explain its invoking of equitable vacatur (see p. 15, to wit, “Of course, the order dismissing the case is not before us in this appeal. But the fact that this case has been dismissed
without prejudice impacts the equities of granting vacatur,” (- something that commenter ‘X” appears unable to grasp).
I do not see the dissent’s reference to the Karcher decision as in any way instructive if you look at that case. However, there are other cases still not directly on point but useful in understanding parameters for vacatur around Munsingwear, see, e.g., Selig, Harper, -and of course the appeals court cited Camretta–unbeknownst to me because I did not read the present case all the way to the end and had pulled up Camretta of my own accord; I could’ve saved myself a lot of time….duh…
I also stand by my earlier comments regarding the fact that it did NOT overrule the district court’s dismissal without prejudice nor did it force dismissal with prejudice, but merely effected notice to present or prospective parties and especially to the district court in future litigation.
nite. nite.
something that commenter ‘X” appears unable to grasp
I have seen literally no subject that X is able to grasp. X is without a doubt the most ignorant commenter on here. He is like the idiot celebrities that prattle on about politics. They don’t know the first f—-ing think about life in the real world. They should all listen to Ricky Gervais and shut the f–k up. Nobody gives a f–k about their political opinions.
https://nypost.com/2026/03/10/us-news/kiss-legend-gene-simmons-tears-apart-celebrities-banging-on-about-politics-and-he-names-names/
Charlie Kirk, It’s ironic that you’re quoting a celebrity like Gene Simmons to tell me that nobody cares about celebrity opinions. You’re so busy screaming about my ‘ignorance’ that you’ve completely forgotten to address a single legal or economic fact I’ve actually posted.
If my comments are so ‘worthless,’ why are you citing the New York Post just to have a reason to talk to me? You’ve effectively abandoned the argument to hide behind a logical fallacy and a rock star’s soundbite. If you ever find a way to dismantle the actual Article III points I made, let me know; until then, thanks for being my most dedicated, albeit loudest, fan.
Lin, it is you who can’t seem to grasp the issue. You’re arguing that ‘equity’ allows a court to ignore the Constitution. Article III doesn’t have an ‘equitable exception’ for judges who want to give a lecture after a case is dead. As Judge Easterbrook noted, once the parties walked away, the court’s authority ended. Using a moot case to ‘effect notice’ for future litigation isn’t an equitable remedy—it’s an unconstitutional advisory opinion. You can cite all the case law you want, but you can’t cite a single statute that gives a court jurisdiction over a ghost.
While technically true, the vacatur achieved the same result for the government: it stripped the plaintiffs of the legal “fact-finding” that proved federal agents “repeatedly lied” and engaged in “unwarranted brutality.” By vacating the order in a moot case, the appellate court didn’t just “resolve the matter”—it shielded the Executive Branch from accountability.
The Persian Empire was Great. Persians are great. Where the —- are they? Where the —- are the Great Persians in their Finest Hour?
Center for Immigration Studies Director Jessica Vaughan on the burden of illegal aliens on taxpayers: “Over 60% of illegal alien headed households are using at least one form of a welfare program, and usually more than one, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars to taxpayers.”
https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/2031389239217131894?s=20
ICE Routinely Violates Court Orders
A federal judge in New Jersey will now require immigration officials to formally declare that they are aware of court orders that bar migrants from being transferred out of state, after the government repeatedly flouted those directives.
The judge, Michael E. Farbiarz, introduced the new process in an order on Monday. It is the second time in a week that U.S. District Court judges in New Jersey have suggested that federal officials were intentionally violating the law and proposed new checks aimed at preventing more violations.
At least 17 detainees have been moved out of New Jersey in violation of a judge’s order since Dec. 5, Judge Farbiarz said last month in a separate court filing. In his order on Monday, the judge wrote that he would encourage compliance with the law by requiring ICE officials to sign affidavits relating to each individual case.
On Thursday, Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, whose courtroom is in Trenton, N.J., said that the U.S. attorney’s office was intentionally violating immigration-related orders. He said that if the Trump administration were to continue to justify its immigration arrests under a rationale that judges have said is legally unacceptable, it would lead to hearings in which he would plan to call top administration officials to testify.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/nyregion/ice-nj-judge-order-immigration.html
Cry harder Gigi, we can’t hear you.
New Jersey Federal Prosecutors Have No Standing
The trio of officials tapped to succeed Alina Habba by splitting the role of New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor are leading the office unlawfully, a federal judge ruled Monday, slamming the Trump administration for seeking to skirt congressional approval once again.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann rejected the government’s assertion that Congress gave Attorney General Pam Bondi the authority to skip over Senate confirmation and handpick U.S. attorneys. He called it “crystal clear and not capable of factual dispute” that the government’s intent is to act “unilaterally” to fill the role.
The judge previously disqualified Alina Habba, the former U.S. attorney for New Jersey, after finding that her tenure turned unlawful when she remained in the role after her 120-day interim term expired, despite the “novel series of legal and personnel moves” the administration took to keep her in the job.
The three officials — Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox and Ari Fontecchi — were tapped by Bondi when Habba stepped down as U.S. attorney in December, after a federal appeals court affirmed her disqualification.
Habba was the first of Trump’s loyalist prosecutors to be found unlawfully serving in her post, but since then, U.S. attorneys in Nevada, California, New York and Virginia have been disqualified.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5775565-trump-trio-officials-ruled-unlawful/?tbref=hp
Boo hoo, can’t you cry harder Gigi? C’mon man, I love liberal tears.
Whatever will happen when Americans wake up?
_______________________________________________________
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
– Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, “Tora! Tora! Tora!”
Well Done, Seventh Circuit !!!!!!! Finally… Legal Principles, the Perspective of Blind Lady Justice and Common Sense meet! The Seventh Circuit plays it Straight! Thank You for restoring our Faith in the American Justice System…. Thank you,, Prof. Turley for your enlightening thorough review!
Well, well, well.
The United States has officially asked Ukraine for help in intercepting Iranian Shahed missiles in the Middle East.
Iran has completely destroyed the $300 million United States’ THAAD radar system in Jordan that acted as the primary defense against Iranian missiles.
Russia has been using Iranian Shaheds against Ukraine since 2022 and they have developed considerable expertise in knocking them down with cheap interceptor drones.
“We received a request from the United States for specific support in protection against ‘shaheds’ in the Middle East region,” Zelensky confirmed on X on Thursday, referring to the Iranian-designed missiles also used by Russia.
“I gave instructions to provide the necessary means and ensure the presence of Ukrainian specialists who can guarantee the required security,” Zelensky added Thursday.
In addition, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters that the US and Qatar are in discussions with Kyiv about acquiring the Ukrainian interceptor drones.
So despite the abuse being heaped on Zelensky by Trump and his minions, he is still willing to step up and answer a request for help in the Middle East.
Zelensky rides to the rescue !!!!!
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-asks-ukraine-for-assistance-in-shooting-down-iranian-shahed-drones-in-middle-east/
ANON roots for Iran!! What a DF!!
K
You have really outdone yourself with this idiotic comment.
If you think that my comment indicates that I am rooting for Iran, you are clearly insane.
I am rooting for Ukraine to rescue the United States in this pointless escapade started by Trump.
It’s Trump vs. Iran. You’re obligated to root against Trump, no thought required.
But now it is Trump AND Zelensky vs. Iran.
How can rooting for Zelensky, as he rides in like cavalry to the rescue, possibly be interpreted as rooting against Trump.
Only in the deranged and demented mind of a MAGA moron.
ANON MORON!!
Rootie Tootie Indeed!
The nuclear bombs of desert lunatics aimed at America do not constitute a “pointless escapade, Imam Grand Mufti, The Direct and Mortal Enemy of the United States.
“Death To America” is your motto, right, Caliph?
It’s deeply concerning as Iran continues to bomb Israel. Perhaps Nick Shirley might travel to Tel Aviv for an honest report.
The fear is Israel will be annihilated at some future time. Do the Iranian clerics really care if Iran is subsequently annihilated? They live for the final afterlife and care nothing for this life.
Overwhelmingly tragic and the US is Israel’s only friend. This is what matters above all else.
^^ Additionally the horrible speech by Mamdami saying it was white supremacy after the failed bomb in NYC. What an evil little man is sitting as a mayor. What evil little people causing unrest and chaos are these.
No. Gigi ain’t rootin for our enemies. She just roots against the U.S. If not for the U.S., Ukraine wouldn’t be. Billions and billions and billions beats some blankets Holy Joe sent. “In 2014 while he was Obama’s VP, Ukraine’s Crimea was invaded by Russia and then US sent beds, blankets & medicines but no weapons.”
Geeze Gigi, try, try really hard, to make one true statement. ONE, u stupid traitor!
Kline and Specter, a law firm in Philadelphia, (Specter is the son of former Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) took the recommendations from Kline to nominate individuals to become District Judges. Kline recommended Juan R Sanchez to Arlen. Arlen strongly recommended Juan for the bench in Philly and once he was approved, Shannon Specter and Tom Klein tried numerous cases before Juan. Guess how they fared?
AI OVERVIEW
Federal Judicial Nominating Commission: Kline served for over two decades (1989–2011), often as chairman, on the Federal Judicial Nominating Commission for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In this role, he was instrumental in recommending candidates for federal judgeships to U.S. Senators.
Kline & Specter, PC, renowned for securing multi-billion dollar, record-setting verdicts and settlements. His firm handles catastrophic injury, medical malpractice, and mass torts, including a $4.85 billion Vioxx settlement
JONATHAN, I SUSPECT YOU BELIEVE OUR DISTRICT COURT JUDGES SHOULD BE BEYOND REPROACH?
Yeah, basically the entire Third Circuit (including the District Courts) has been the product of Arlen Specter’s reign for decades.
Remember – he switched to the Democratic Party while a sitting Senator in an effort to stave off a challenge from future Senator Pat Toomey.
He was of the Specter Party.
Nothin looks shady to me. You? The Canons only forbid The Appearance of wrongdoing, right? What’s wrong with manipulating who gets on the court and who tries the cases that come before the court?
While the Code of Judicial Conduct heavily emphasizes avoiding the
appearance of impropriety, the canons also strictly prohibit actual impropriety
They have a random selection tool that Must be followed. Ever see one?
Specter was filthy. Arlen Specter, acting as assistant counsel for the lying whitewash Warren Commission in 1964, was the primary author of the ”
single-bullet theory.”
Arlen Specter involved in what would be considered REAL criminal activity that was never investgated or brought up on the campaign trail.
In brief, Frank Purdue committed manslaughter one day on the Pennsylvania Turnpike during a drunk driving accident. He hired the guy who was going to become the new District Attorney, Arlen Specter, who was just a defense lawyer then. Once he became District Attorney, Specter buried the whole incident by waiting until the day after the statute of limitations ended to bring the case up in a quiet fashion
The panel found that her order “impermissibly infringes on separation of powers principles.”
Imperial federal district judges don’t want there to be a separation of powers. They want to hold all the power. The “least dangerous branch” is quite dangerous when it views its ability to draft an order and control everyone else as carte blanche to tell everyone what to do including co-equal branches of government. They can draft orders by typing whatever words they want into a word processor and everyone else has to obey those words, no need for a vote or public comments. That becomes heady stuff, and like any fallible human being, they become intoxicated with power. The difference is that the should by their training be attuned to such temptations and to resist them.
There needs to be something more than a ‘strong rebuke’ for rogue judges. They don’t care. They are shameless.
If we get more legislators and fewer clowns in Congress the jurisdiction of all federal courts can be trimmed a lot.
Also some departures from legal standards may be so prima facie that bar discipline is automatically engaged.
They need to be convinced that they are not untouchable.
Certain, highly severe departures from legal standards are considered
prima facie evidence of misconduct, often triggering automatic or summary disbarment/suspension proceedings, as they demonstrate a profound lack of honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice
I love it when these dems losers eat crow. Entertaining to say the least.
Impeach them.
OT
I can’t believe how much doom and gloom is MSM left and right. It’s awful. Additionally congress is worse than worthless, harmful.
They vote in mindless blocks and every vote comes down to maybe 7 votes. It speaks of how House reps are truly needed. The single amendment really needed is to cut reps. Top it at 100 or fewer. It’s nonsense at so many incompetent people being in positions of supposed authority when it’s just bureaucrats running the place.
I watched cooking shows, videos about dogs, cats and birds were enjoyable and improved my welfare. The nonsense and absurdity is so yesterday.
With Epstein thing back-burnered, I’d like a law about men going to foreign nations to use that nations CHILDREN for untoward matters, criminal and immoral. When that nation is done with them extradite to the US for severe punishment.
Carpe diem
Not sure about the left’s 0.000 batting average thing, however, the Administration recently won another appeal that did not get much press. The case is interesting from a culture war perspective. Also, it might well have laid to rest the future of nationwide injunctions issued by USDCs , as not a single such injunction (that I found) has been upheld on appeal.
On February 6, 2026, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a nationwide preliminary injunction that forbid implementation of two Executive Orders issued by President Trump, finding that they were not facially unconstitutional. Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Officers in Higher Educ. v. Trump, No. 25-1189, ___ F.4th ___, (4th Cir. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2026). The vacated injunction forbid the administration from from taking steps to excise DEI programs, rules, regs and initiatives inside the government, as well as in programs/contracts/grants the government funds.
Part of the case survived the appeal, and the case was remanded to the district court.
-g
OT
Would James Carville have been found guilty under the Sedition Act of 1798?
So much hate from the party that puts “hate has no home here” and “abide no hate” signs outside their house. He has a right to hate whomever he wants, just spare me the hypocrisy is all I’m saying.
My sign says I believe Mad Scientists want to kill us with viruses, water boarding leads to the truth quickly, there is no room for illegals here and those people are crazy.
If judges can demand supervision of police agencies in the performance iof their duties, why can’t they supervise military forces in the performance of their duties? Eventually the judges would be conducting all foreign and domestic policies of the federal government.
“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.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
These are not decisions that may be overturned; these are crimes of high office requiring impeachment, conviction, and, in this case, revocation of naturalized citizenship.
Ellis was born in 1969, in London, Ontario, Canada,[1] to Jamaican-born parents. She became a naturalized citizen of the United States when she was 15 years old.[2][3]