Lead: Chicago residents and local leaders testified Wednesday about startling run-ins with federal agents — recounting tear gas, pepperball strikes to the head and guns pointed at civilians — as U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis prepared to issue a Thursday ruling on whether to impose longer-term limits on the federal campaign dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz.” Witnesses said the encounters changed how they move, pray and protest in the city; federal commanders defended their tactics as necessary. The hearing came amid an expiring temporary restraining order and an expected appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Sara Ellis heard roughly eight hours of testimony on Wednesday and said petitioner experiences — including being tear-gassed or hit with pepperballs — matter to any injunction decision.
- The current TRO barring use of tear gas and riot-control weapons without two warnings during the deportation campaign expires at 11 a.m. Thursday; Ellis will announce a more permanent preliminary injunction at 10 a.m. Thursday.
- U.S. Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino testified via video that agents’ use of force in Chicago has been “more than exemplary” and that he would have used additional tear gas in Little Village if it had been available.
- Several witnesses described direct threats: Rev. David Black said he was struck seven times by pepperballs on Sept. 19, including twice in the head; Ald. Julia Ramirez said an armored vehicle arrived in Brighton Park with an agent pointing a gun down at the crowd.
- Customs and Border Protection agent Kristopher Hewson testified that tear gas is not a “serious” weapon and denied it “harms” people, while also supporting arrests tied to agents’ deployment of canisters.
- Conflicting accounts and courtroom friction highlighted a deep factual divide: federal officials portray measured enforcement; plaintiffs report actions that chilled protest and public life, including pregnant alderwoman Julia Ramirez stepping back from downtown protests.
Background
Operation Midway Blitz is the federal deportation campaign that has brought U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol deployments to neighborhoods across Chicago in recent months. Federal authorities say the operation targets individuals suspected of serious criminal conduct, while community groups, press organizations and local officials argue the tactics have swept up peaceful protesters, journalists and bystanders. Earlier this fall Judge Ellis issued a temporary restraining order limiting the use of riot-control weapons against people who pose no immediate threat and requiring warnings before dispersal tools are used.
The dispute has moved quickly through the Dirksen Federal Courthouse: plaintiffs including media organizations (the Chicago Headline Club, Block Club Chicago and the Chicago Newspaper Guild) have mounted challenges over press access and use-of-force, while the government has defended its operational choices. The procedural backdrop includes a recent 7th Circuit finding that Ellis overstepped separation-of-powers limits when she ordered Commander Bovino to meet with her nightly; that ruling is likely to shape any appeal once Ellis issues her forthcoming injunction decision.
Main Event
At Wednesday’s eight-hour hearing, the courtroom heard emotional firsthand accounts and sworn testimony from federal agents. Witnesses described being pursued, having weapons pointed at them and suffering direct strikes from pepperballs and other crowd-control munitions. Rev. David Black testified about the Sept. 19 Broadview rooftop incident, saying he was praying when agents fired pepperballs; he said he was hit seven times, including twice to the head, and now carries a GPS tracker to document encounters.
Leslie Cortez, an environmental-justice organizer who filmed an early-October arrest of day laborers, testified that an agent drew a weapon and aimed down the barrel at her. Ald. Julia Ramirez described an armored vehicle arriving in Brighton Park with an agent on top pointing a gun into the neighborhood, and said the experience has discouraged her from attending downtown protests while nine months pregnant. Jo-Elle Munchak recounted agents later blocking her car and pointing a gun at her head after she filmed landscaper detentions on Oct. 10.
Federal witnesses offered sharply different recollections. Commander Gregory Bovino, in uniform on video, defended the agents’ conduct as exemplary and acknowledged he had used tear gas before claiming he’d been struck by a rock, a concession lawyers said contradicted earlier statements. Agent Kristopher Hewson downplayed tear gas’s danger, calling it not a “serious” weapon, while also testifying that arrests connected to canisters thrown by agents were lawful and appropriate.
Tensions in the courtroom escalated when plaintiff attorney Jonathan Loevy pressed agents on whether operations involved searching for “people with brown skin,” prompting heated objections and a recess in which Judge Ellis took lawyers into a hallway. The adversarial exchanges underscored the factual gap the court must resolve in deciding whether more durable limits on federal tactics are warranted.
Analysis & Implications
The testimony presents the court with competing narratives: one that frames federal activity as targeted enforcement of immigration and criminal law, and another that portrays widespread overreach with public-safety and constitutional consequences. If Ellis issues a broader preliminary injunction at 10 a.m. Thursday, the government will almost certainly appeal, pushing the dispute back to the 7th Circuit and potentially higher. The litigation could set benchmarks for how federal agents may use crowd-control measures in U.S. cities during immigration enforcement operations.
Beyond immediate courtroom outcomes, the proceedings carry political and civic implications for Chicago. Reports that community leaders, clergy and municipal officials feel less safe or withdraw from public protest may amplify political pressure on both federal and local actors to revise tactics or oversight structures. For journalists and civil-society monitors, a lasting injunction could limit the range of force they document on the ground and influence newsroom safety protocols.
Operationally, agents’ testimony that they would have used more tear gas if it were available signals a potential escalation in tactics absent judicial restraint. Conversely, plaintiffs’ accounts of facial strikes, head wounds and pointed firearms raise legal questions about excessive force, Fourth Amendment protections and First Amendment chill. Any appellate review will hinge on how courts weigh immediate public-safety justifications against documented harms to peaceful observers and press sources.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Plaintiff Accounts | Federal Testimony |
|---|---|---|
| Tear gas/pepperball use | Multiple witnesses reported direct strikes; Rev. David Black hit 7 times (2 in head) | Commander Bovino defended force as “exemplary”; said he would have used more gas if available |
| Warnings before deployment | Witnesses said they received little or no advance warning | Agents stated actions complied with the TRO and arrest rules |
| Alleged targeting | Questions raised about racial profiling during patrols | Agents denied selective targeting by skin color |
The table summarizes contrasting claims presented in court. While plaintiffs tied specific injuries and behavioral changes to federal tactics, agency witnesses emphasized adherence to orders and operational necessity. The upcoming injunction decision will rest on the judge’s assessment of whether documented harms outweigh the government’s stated enforcement interests and whether prior TRO conditions remain adequate.
Reactions & Quotes
Attorneys and community members reacted forcefully in the courtroom and afterward, framing the question as both legal and moral. Plaintiff counsel urged stronger constraints on tactics; government lawyers emphasized officer safety and mission goals.
“It’s a disgrace,”
Steven Art, plaintiff attorney
Art used the phrase to condemn the federal campaign’s treatment of Chicago residents during Operation Midway Blitz, arguing that the Constitution protects public dissent and scrutiny of enforcement actions. His comment came near the hearing’s close as plaintiffs pressed for longer-term judicial limits.
“The use of force has been more than exemplary,”
U.S. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino (video testimony)
Bovino’s brief quote encapsulated the government’s defensive posture; he also admitted on cross-examination that he had thrown tear gas before reporting being struck by a rock, which plaintiffs’ counsel said undermined his earlier account.
Unconfirmed
- Whether agents systematically targeted people by skin color across the operation remains disputed; testimony produced denials from agents and allegations from plaintiffs but no definitive corroborating dataset was presented in court.
- Exact medical causation linking specific reported injuries (for example, head strikes) to long-term harm has not been independently verified in the courtroom record released at the hearing.
Bottom Line
The hearing laid bare sharply divergent accounts of federal enforcement in Chicago: community members and journalists described experiences that they say chilled protest, prayer and daily life; federal commanders defended their actions as necessary and lawful. Judge Ellis’s forthcoming decision — scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday — will determine whether the TRO’s temporary limits become a longer-term injunction, but the government has signaled it will appeal any expansion of judicial constraints.
Whatever Ellis decides, the question will likely return to the appellate courts, with wider implications for how federal immigration operations are conducted in densely populated cities. Observers should watch for the 7th Circuit’s handling of separation-of-powers concerns and whether the record convinces judges that the balance of harms favors lasting judicial limits or continued operational discretion for federal agents.
Sources
- Chicago Sun-Times — news report summarizing Wednesday’s hearing and testimony (original reporting)