Summary
The Seventh Circuit granted the government's unopposed motion, vacated the district court's preliminary injunction, and dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2). The court held that vacatur was appropriate because the case appeared moot and because the district court's broad injunction could produce adverse legal consequences, including in future litigation. Judge Easterbrook dissented, concluding that the court should dismiss the appeal without vacating the district court's order because all parties had abandoned the litigation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should vacate the district court's preliminary injunction before dismissing the government's interlocutory appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2).
- Whether the apparent end of the challenged federal enforcement operation rendered the plaintiffs' request for forward-looking injunctive relief moot.
- Whether extraordinary equitable circumstances independently justified vacating the preliminary injunction to prevent it from producing adverse legal or preclusive consequences.
- Whether the district court's sua sponte decertification of the class and dismissal without prejudice affected the equities supporting vacatur.
Holdings
- Vacatur of the district court's preliminary injunction was appropriate before dismissing the appeal because the case appeared moot and the injunction posed a risk of serious adverse legal consequences if left in place.
- The case appeared to be moot because the challenged federal enforcement operation had ended or materially diminished and the plaintiffs sought only forward-looking injunctive relief.
- The preliminary injunction should not remain in effect because its broad restrictions and factual and legal conclusions could affect future litigation despite the dismissal of the underlying action.
Key quotations
“Vacatur is therefore appropriate for two independent reasons. This case appears to be moot, and the district court’s order risks spawning serious legal consequences if it is not vacated.” (8)
“As we exercise our “broad” “supervisory power” over district courts, vacating this order signals district courts to avoid issuing similarly expansive injunctions against the Executive Branch.” (11)
“Vacatur is the best way to wipe the slate clean.” (15)
“We VACATE the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. And we DISMISS this appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(2).” (15)
Factual background
During Operation Midway Blitz, federal immigration authorities increased enforcement activity in and around Chicago. Protesters and journalists alleged that federal agents used tear gas, pepper balls, and other chemical agents against demonstrations, particularly outside the ICE detention facility in Broadview, Illinois. The district court entered a sweeping injunction regulating federal law-enforcement activity throughout the Northern District of Illinois, but the operation later ended or materially diminished and the plaintiffs reported no further allegedly unconstitutional conduct after November 8, 2025.
Procedural history
The district court entered a broad temporary restraining order, certified a class, and later entered a districtwide preliminary injunction concerning federal officers' use of crowd-control tactics during immigration-enforcement protests. The Seventh Circuit granted mandamus concerning the district court's supervision of a DHS official and stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal. The plaintiffs then sought dismissal after the enforcement operation appeared to end; the district court dismissed without prejudice and sua sponte decertified the class. The Seventh Circuit granted the government's motion, vacated the preliminary injunction, and dismissed the appeal.