Jon Seidel
LightNews LightNews
banner
jonseidel.bsky.social
Jon Seidel
@jonseidel.bsky.social
11K followers 79 following 1.3K posts
Federal Courts Reporter, @chicago.suntimes.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
jonseidel.bsky.social
And FWIW, here's how it was all described in the criminal complaint filed against Briggs:
4. On September 27, 2025, a large crowd gathered in protest of ongoing immigration enforcement operations being conducted by law enforcement authorities in the Northern District of Illinois. The crowd gathered in protest in front of an entrance to an ICE facility located on Beach Street in Broadview, Illinois (hereinafter the "Broadview Facility"). Agents from the United States Border Patrol (USBP) were working in and around the Broadview Facility to ensure the safe passage of vehicles and personnel into and out of the Broadview Facility. This included performing various crowd control functions outside the Broadview Facility. 5. The entrance to the Broadview Facility at issue includes a large metal security gate that opens onto a public street. Personnel working at the Broadview Facility routinely utilized the entrance gate to move personnel and vehicles into and out of the Broadview Facility. Individuals standing in the street during these operations created an impediment to the movement of federal government personnel and vehicles into or out of the Broadview Facility. As a result, USBP agents routinely instructed protesters, at the risk of arrest, to leave the street area when USBP agents, in the exercise of their lawful authority, needed to utilize the street in furtherance of their operations. 6. As reflected in video recordings made by third-parties and later posted to YouTube, at approximately 5:40 pm (Central Time) on September 27, 2025, USBP agents, while facing outward toward protesters, were moving backward from the street into the Broadview Facility. BRIGGS was one of multiple protesters who remained in the street facing the USBP agents and walking toward them as they retreated toward the open gate of the Broadview Facility gate. BRIGGS was located several feet from the USBP agents. 7. Prior to all of the USBP agents entering the Broadview Facility, for operational reasons, USBP agents began moving back out of the Broadview Facility into the street. As they did so, and as captured on videos posted to YouTube, USBP agents ordered all persons in the street, including BRIGGS, to leave the street to facilitate the movement of personnel and vehicles out of the Broadview Facility and into the public street. 8. However, rather than move out of the street as instructed, BRIGGS remained stationary in the street shouted "Why?" toward a USBP agent. That USBP agent then made physical contact with BRIGGS, who fell backwards onto the street. Agents then moved forward to arrest BRIGGS for refusing to follow the USBP agent's order for him to leave the street. As reflected in one YouTube video I have seen, as agents began to arrest BRIGGS, he attempted to hand his phone to another protester. At that moment, another USBP agent ("Victim A"), wearing a USBP uniform that bore insignia identifying Victim A as a USBP agent, reached forward with Victim A's left arm to prevent BRIGGS from handing off his phone. In response, BRIGGS swung his right arm toward Victim A's left arm and, in doing so, made physical contact with Victim A's left arm. BRIGGS' act of swinging his right arm toward Victim A's left arm and striking Victim A's left arm (which resulted in an audible slapping noise) is depicted in the YouTube video. Thereafter, BRIGGS was arrested without incident. 9. On September 27, 2025, an HSI case agent briefly interviewed Victim A who told the HSI case agent that BRIGGS made contact with Victim A and, in doing so, caused Victim A to experience pain in Victim A's wrist. 10. On September 28, 2025, an HSI case agent conducted a second interview of Victim A, which included review of the YouTube video with footage that depicted BRIGGS swinging his right arm toward Victim A's left arm. Victim A confirmed that it was Victim A's left arm that was depicted in the video and that it was during this portion of the video that BRIGGS made contact with Victim A. 11. Various USBP agents were equipped with BWCs at the time of BRIGGS' arrest, although not all of the agents, including Victim A, had their BWC operating at the time of the incident. Affiant has procured and reviewed the BWC of the USBP agent who physically interacted with BRIGGS prior to his arrest. Due to the position of BRIGGS' body relative to that agent at the time of BRIGGS' arrest, that BWC does not depict BRIGGS swinging his arm in the direction of Victim A. III. Conclusion 12. Based on the above information, I submit there is probable cause to believe that on or about September 27, 2025, DANA BRIGGS forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, and interfered with an officer of the United States, as designated in Title 18, United State Code, Section 1114, more specifically, a USBP agent, who was engaged in the performance of their official duties, and in doing so, DANA BRIGGS made physical contact with the agent, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1).
November 24, 2025 at 10:17 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Here's the second:
November 24, 2025 at 10:00 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel Fuentes, in dismissing Midway Blitz-related charges against Dana Briggs last week, said he was lifting restrictions on relevant video.

Today he made the video available through the clerk's office at no cost to the public. Here's the first.
November 24, 2025 at 9:58 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
This appears to be one of the photos Bond has shown the judge as he walks through the allegations. Reed also looks at the photos, offering no reaction.
November 21, 2025 at 4:11 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Statement from Joseph Fitzpatrick, spokesman for U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros:
As the United States Attorney has stated repeatedly in his public comments, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is constantly evaluating new facts and information relating to cases and investigations arising out of Operation Midway Blitz, the largest ever law enforcement surge in the Northern District of Illinois. This continuous review process applies to all matters—whether charged or under investigation. It helps ensure that the interests of justice are served in each and every case, and that those cases that are charged are appropriately adjudicated through our federal court system.
November 20, 2025 at 7:12 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
#BREAKING The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a short-term administrative stay of the order from U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings that aimed to release as many as 615 people detained by ICE.

That means their release is on hold.

Oral arguments 12/2.
1. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL AND IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY, filed on November 17, 2025, by counsel for the appellants, 2. APPELLEES' OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL AND IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY, filed on November 19, 2025, by counsel for the appellees. 3. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL AND IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY, filed on November 20, 2025, by counsel for the appellants. IT IS ORDERED the district court's October 7 and November 13 orders (docket nos. 214 and 247) are administratively STAYED pending further order of this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that argument on the motion for stay pending appeal is set for Tuesday, December 2, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. Time for oral argument will be limited to 20 minutes per side.
November 20, 2025 at 5:25 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
#BREAKING Federal prosecutors in Chicago move to dismiss charges against Marimar Martinez, the woman shot by Border Patrol in Brighton Park, as well as her co-defendant Anthony Ruiz.
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, through its attorney ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the indictment in the above-captioned case against both defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests leave of the Court dismiss the indictment and exonerate the defendants’ respective bonds.
November 20, 2025 at 3:43 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Good morning. Federal prosecutors in Chicago have moved to dismiss another case tied to Operation Midway Blitz. This time it's the case of Dana Briggs, which had been set for trial 12/8.

Briggs had U.S. Border Patrol Cmdr. Greg Bovino on his witness list.
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), to dismiss the information in the above- captioned matter and to exonerate the defendant’s bond.
November 20, 2025 at 2:18 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
#BREAKING The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed Judge Sara Ellis' preliminary injunction, which restricted the feds' use of force in Chicago.

The appeals court says her order is "overbroad" but warns "do not overread today's order."
ORDER On November 6, 2025, the district court ordered a preliminary injunction forbidding defendants from using certain crowd control techniques and imposing additional requirements on law enforcement activities. Dist. Ct. DE 250. Defendants seek a stay pending appeal, and plaintiffs oppose. A stay is appropriate if the movant demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009); Camelot Banquet Rooms, Inc. v. Small Bus. Admin, 14 F.4th 624, 628 (7th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). And “[i]n close cases ... [a court] will balance the equities and weigh the relative harms to the applicant and to the respondent.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam). 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. Further, the order requires the enjoined parties to submit for judicial review all current and future internal guidance, policies, and directives regarding efforts to implement the order—a mandate impermissibly infringing on principles of separation of powers on this record. Finally, 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. We also have reservations about Article III standing. Open questions remain whether plaintiffs have shown that the past harm they allegedly faced is likely to imminently happen to them in the future. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105– 06 (1983). A fear that such harm will recur is insufficient, on its own, to show standing for injunctive relief. Id. at 107 n.8. And we are aware of public reporting suggesting that the enhanced immigration enforcement initiative may have lessened or ceased, which could affect both the justiciability of this case and the propriety of injunctive relief. Additionally, defendants face irreparable harm. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 860–61 (2025). “Any time that the Government is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.” Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25A169, 2025 WL 2585637, at *3 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2025) (citation modified); see also CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. at 861. And the balance of equities does not counsel against awarding defend…
November 19, 2025 at 8:07 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Judge Jeffrey Cummings tonight has denied a bid for a stay pending appeal of an order that aimed to release as many as 615 people arrested by ICE.

He notes that 442 people actually stand to benefit. 57 have been deemed a safety risk, 75 have been deported and 33 have otherwise been released.
With respect to the prospective class members who were to be potentially released from detention, the Court implored defense counsel to identify any foreign national whom ICE determined should not be released due to posing a high public safety risk or, more broadly, “too high a risk to be released,” and it emphasized that it would not release any such person from detention. (Dckt. #260 at 25–26, 30). The Court further made clear that it was not going to second-guess ICE’s criteria for determining which of the foreign nationals would pose a high public safety risk. (Id. at 30–31). ICE subsequently filed a notice of compliance and supplemental notice of compliance to identify those individuals within the group of 615 who were deemed to be a “high public safety risk” if they were to be released. (Dckt. ##255, 256). Upon analysis of the notices, ICE has identified fifty-seven individuals who fall within the category of a “high public safety risk” due to their criminal record or for some other unspecified reasons. (Id.). In addition, the notices reflect that seventy-five of the individuals have been removed from the United States; thirty-three of the individuals have been released from detention by being bonded out through an order from an immigration judge, receiving other relief from an immigration judge, paroled, or released on their own recognizance; and that approximately 442 individuals are eligible for release from detention on ATD pending payment of bond as specified by the Court.
November 18, 2025 at 11:57 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
As expected, the Justice Department tonight has appealed the order from U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings that aims to release hundreds of detainees who were arrested by ICE.

The feds are also seeking a stay.
11/13/2025 248 NOTICE of appeal by Department of Homeland Security, Thomas D. Homan, Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ronald D Vitiello, Ricardo Wong regarding orders 247 , 214 Receipt number: y (Weiland, William) (Entered: 11/13/2025) 11/13/2025 249 MOTION by Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Thomas D. Homan, Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ronald D Vitiello, Ricardo Wong to stay regarding order on motion for miscellaneous relief,, motion hearing, set deadlines 247 , notice of appeal 248 , memorandum opinion and order, terminate deadlines and hearings 214 pending appeal (emergency motion filed) (Weiland, William) (Entered: 11/13/2025)
November 14, 2025 at 4:21 AM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Ahead of a status (3pm CT) in Judge Sara Ellis' case involving the feds' use of force against protesters and journalists, plaintiffs have filed a new notice of alleged violations.

This excerpt addresses the claim that someone opened fire on agents last weekend:
Apparent Violation on November 8, 2025, in Little Village: 6. As this Court is aware, Little Village has been a focus of Defendants’ misconduct in this District. See Dkt. 90, 94 (Plaintiff’s prior notice of violations concerning Little Village). Defendant Bovino deployed tear gas without justification there last month, made up a false story to support that action, lied about that story under oath, and then changed his testimony during the final session of his deposition. See Dkt. 224 (Motion to Supplement Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction). This event played a role at the evidentiary hearing and in this Court’s ruling. Dkt. 256, Tr. at 9. 7. On November 8, 2025, in Little Village, around 25th/26th and Pulaski, Defendants deployed flash bangs and tear gas. Other chemical munitions may have been deployed. This all took place as people protested Defendants’ actions in the area, observed them, and recorded them. Some descriptions can be found here: a. https://bsky.app/profile/djbyrnes1.bsky.social/post/3m555ellzmc2a b. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CNAa1gzU6/?mibextid=wwXIfr c. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/11/08/community-members-confront- bovino/ 8. As with other incidents, the chemical munitions were deployed in response to protected speech and meted out against civilians without cause, apparently in direct defiance of this Court’s order).2 9. Witnesses, including a City alderman, present during the deployment of these munitions say they did not witness any gunshots or other violence that would have justified the deployment of flash bangs and tear gas, as reported on by one of the press plaintiffs, Charles Thrush, from Block Club Chicago. See Charles Thrush, Feds Pepper-Spray 1-Year-Old In Cicero, Use Tear Gas On Little Village Neighbors, Block Club Chicago (Nov. 9, 2025), https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/11/09/feds-again-use-tear-gas-in-little-village-after- clash-with-protesters-neighbors/; see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHPk- J4eYUI.3 2 On Sunday, November 8, Defendant Bovino and his agents gathered for a photo opportunity at the Cloud Gate sculpture in Millenium Park (also known as the Bean). Instead of saying the traditional “cheese,” they did a call and response of “Little Village.” See Colin Boyle, Border Patrol Agents Pose At The Bean For Apparent Photo Op, BLOCK CLUB CHICAGO (Nov. 10, 2025), https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/11/10/border-patrol-agents-pose-at-the- bean-for-apparent-photo-op/. 3 Block Club and Mr. Thrush are Plaintiffs in this suit who have reported on Defendants’ actions. Defendant Bovino specifically targeted Block Club for attack after the events in Little Village, calling them the “Chicago Liars Club” and complaining about their reporting. See Boyle, supra, n.1 10. Defendants and their attorneys contend that these uses of force were justified. Starting immediately after this incident, Defendants said that they were shot at by a person in a black Jeep and that people had thrown bricks and paint cans at them. 11. Defendant DHS publicly stated that agents were shot at on Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/dhsgov/status/1987240542833680566?s=46&t=4rUXTBt_ W24m-uWR74DQ5A. Defendant Bovino did as well, https://x.com/cmdropatlargeca/status/1987296054438469761?s=46. 12. The parties conferred about this incident, and Defendants’ counsel provided the following information: a. At approximately 9:25 a.m., an unknown Latino male in a black Jeep shot five times at federal agents and sped away. Around the same time, a paint can was thrown through an agent’s car window. Bricks were thrown at CBP car from a rooftop. b. At approximately 9:37 a.m., a Chicago Police officer was struck by a vehicle. c. Shortly thereafter, agents began to leave, and more bricks were thrown at them from buildings. d. Agents deployed a controlled tire deflation device at a car driving toward them as they left and proceeded to the FBI field office. e. Another driver tried to drive their car at agents, and that person was arrested. f. Later that morning, the Chicago Police Department found 2 shell casings near the intersection of 25th and Kedzie. A person has been arrested who matches the description of the shooter, and that person was in possession of a weapon.g. There should be body worn camera footage for these incidents, and at least one E-Star report is being completed. 13. Plaintiffs have asked the Defendants repeatedly to provide documentary or video evidence regarding supporting their account and have not received any documents as of the time of this filing.
November 13, 2025 at 8:50 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
JUST IN: The Trump administration asks the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay Judge Sara Ellis' preliminary injunction restricting the use of force against protesters and journalists in Chicago.

Full motion here: cst.brightspotcdn.com/bc/ac/04906a...
INTRODUCTION The role of the Judiciary is to resolve concrete cases and controversies, not to act as general overseer of the Executive. But in response to the government’s efforts to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws after years of non-enforcement during an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration, courts have issued sweeping, programmatic injunctions that usurp executive authority and empower judges to superintend law-enforcement activities under threat of contempt. The predictable result is to broadly obstruct the enforcement of the Nation’s laws, chill the exercise of executive power, and subvert the constitutional structure. This case is a perfect example. This Court previously issued a writ of mandamus to quash an order of this district court that “infringe[d] on the separation of powers” by “set[ting] the court up as a supervisor” of the agency’s law- enforcement activities. Order, In re Noem, No. 25-2936 (7th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025). The district court has now issued an extraordinary preliminary injunction that no less reflects an improper aggrandizement of the judicial role and a violation of the separation of powers. What began as a complaint by journalists and protestors alleging that DHS officers targeted them with crowd-control devices at a handful of protests in September and early October has transformed into an instrument for judicial micromanagement of federal law-enforcement operations in the Chicago area. Indeed, this injunction is so granular it consumes eight pages, governing everything from body-worn cameras, to agent identification, to the content of warnings before rioters may be dispersed, to when agents may use chokeholds, tackle suspects, or deploy tear gas. This Court should grant an immediate administrative stay and a stay pending appeal. This overbroad and unworkable injunction has no basis in law, threatens the safety of federal officers, and violates the separation of powers. Plaintiffs lack standing to seek this sweeping prospective relief based solely on past incidents of alleged misconduct that they only speculate may recur. Nor can plaintiffs’ claims support the relief ordered, which is untethered from the constitutional and statutory provisions that plaintiffs invoked and which reaches well beyond plaintiffs to restrain all DHS operations within the Northern District of Illinois. The injunction is also unworkable in practice, transforming a single district court into a supervisory tribunal for adjudicating the lawfulness of federal officers’ day-to-day operations. Indeed, plaintiffs have already alleged more than a half dozen violations of the court’s orders—tellingly, based on incidents that involved no named plaintiff at all. This Court’s prompt intervention is once more required to stay this untenable injunction, protect the safety of the public and law-enforcement officers, and restore the balance of power between the Executive and Judicial Branches.
November 10, 2025 at 7:56 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
The latest update on conditions inside Broadview's ICE facility, where a magistrate judge is planning a visit this week.

The Trump administration says it's "compliant" with an order to provide phone services so detainees may communicate with counsel.

Plaintiffs "continue to have concerns."
JOINT WRITTEN STATUS REPORT The parties, by their undersigned attorneys, hereby submit the following joint status report pursuant to the court’s November 7, 2025, order (Dkt. 57) to apprise the court on the government’s compliance with the attorney-client communications provision of the court’s temporary restraining order (Dkt. 49). Defendants’ Position: Para. 10 of the TRO requires defendants to “provide telephone services for each Detainee to communicate with the Detainee’s counsel in private and without cost.” Defendants are compliant with this provision. Detainees have access to a government phone and private area to call their attorneys free of charge upon request. The government has set up a new phone number (708-316-4200) and email address (BSSA.Outreach@ice.dhs.gov) that attorneys may use to initiate contact with their clients. The new Broadview phone number is not fully operational yet, so the government will be using the phone number to the guard shack call (708-316-4192) in the meantime. This number is for attorneys only. Attorneys may also send email requests to email Chicago.Outreach@ice.dhs.gov and CHI-ERO-Detained@ice.dhs.gov until the new Broadview email address is fully operational. The email addresses will kick back an auto reply to include the phone number that attorneys may use to coordinate calls to their clients. The phone number will also be distributed to the Chicago AILA Chapter. The telephone calls are not being monitored or recorded In terms of nighttime lighting, the facility has implemented a 11 p.m.-11:15 p.m. to 5 a.m.- 5:15 a.m. “lights out” period where the lighting will be dimmed (absent any exigent circumstances such as during detainee transfers for safety reasons). Defense counsel asked that plaintiffs’ counsel test the phone number and emails on November 8-9, 2025, and report back in an attempt to trouble shoot before today’s noon deadline. Counsel for the defendants was not made aware of any of the issues reported below until five minutes before the filing deadline. The defense will look into plaintiffs’ complaints. Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs cannot verify whether Defendants are compliant with the provisions of the TRO concerning attorney-client communications. Plaintiffs continue to have concerns that attorneys are not able to arrange calls to their clients in a timely fashion. The new phone number that the government has set up (708-316-4200) still does not work. As described during the last court hearing, the phone line cuts off after an attorney navigates through the automated menu. On Saturday, November 8, 2025, around 2:45 p.m., Defendants’ counsel provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with the phone number to the Broadview guard shack, as mentioned above (708-316-4192). Plaintiffs are in touch with an attorney, Shelby Vcelka (who testified at the TRO hearing) who called the guard shack number on Sunday afternoon before 3:30pm in an effort to set up a call with her client. She was transferred to a supervisor who told her that someone would call her back within 48 hours. As of 8:30 am today (Monday), she had not heard back. Plaintiffs submit that a 48-hour response time is far too long, particularly given the substantial rights at stake while people are detained and processed at Broadview and the fact that people may be transferred elsewhere sooner than 48 hours. The new email address (BSSA.Outreach@ice.gov) generates an auto-reply, but it lists the ICE Chicago Field office number (872-351-3990). That number disconnects after an attorney navigates through the automated menu. The auto-reply does not contain the guard shack phone number. The Chicago.Outreach@ice.dhs.gov and CHI-ERO-Detained@ice.dhs.gov email addresses do not generate auto-replies. We have received one report from an attorney who appears to have emailed both the BSSA.Outreach@ice.gov mailbox and Chicago.Outreach@ice.gov mailboxes and subsequently received a phone call from a Broadview official in response. That attorney was able to have a phone call with her client. It is not clear to Plaintiffs which email inbox precipitated the response. Nor is it clear to Plaintiffs how frequently either of these mailboxes are monitored or whether attorneys consistently receive a prompt response and client call. Plaintiffs have no information about whether detainees are being provided with the means to make free, unmonitored, and private phone calls to attorneys, or where that is being facilitated within the Broadview facility. With respect to nighttime lighting, Plaintiffs have no information at this time about whether or how Defendants are implementing the new “lights out” period they describe to the Court. Plaintiffs have received no further information about whether detainees are now being provided with a bedding mat or bedding, and have also received no further information about food service at the facility.
November 10, 2025 at 6:09 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
JUST IN: The Justice Department formally appeals U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis' preliminary injunction, which restricts the use of force against protesters and journalists.
NOTICE OF APPEAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CHICAGO HEADLINE CLUB et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of U.S. ) Department of Homeland Security, in her ) No. 25-cv-12173 Hon. Sara L. Ellis, ) United States District Judge Defendants hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit this Court’s preliminary injunction order, see ECF Nos. 250 & 256, including this Court’s Opinion and Order granting class certification, see ECF Nos. 252 & 256, to the extent the Court’s grant of a class-wide preliminary injunction depends on that decision.
November 9, 2025 at 9:40 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
JUST IN: The declaration of U.S. Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino

He says he received a body-worn camera, has been trained on a body-worn camera, and is "currently using my body-worn camera in compliance with the preliminary injunction."
DECLARATION OF GREGORY K. BOVINO I, Gregory K. Bovino, declare and affirm as follows: 1. I received a body worn camera on October 30, 2025. 2. I completed the requisite body-worn camera training on October 30, 2025. 3. I am currently using my body-worn camera in compliance with the preliminary injunction. Executed this 7th day of November, 2025, in Chicago, Illinois.
November 7, 2025 at 11:08 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
From a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, who calls today's preliminary injunction an "extreme act" by an "activist judge."

"We shall appeal."
November 6, 2025 at 9:06 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
We’ve got a newsy day planned at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse.

My colleagues and I at @chicago.suntimes.com will be doing our best to push everything out as it comes, starting with the hearing in Judge Ellis’ courtroom.

Stay tuned.
November 5, 2025 at 1:37 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Overnight court filings seem to be giving us a peek at what U.S. Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino said in his deposition so far (it apparently continues today):
Bovino also asserts he has “interacted with many violent rioters and individuals at the Broadview facility,” and, indeed, will not admit he has ever seen protesters who were not violent rioters. Ex. 100 at 215. Yet Bovino admitted Hhe did not know “what they are,” he explained, and could not remember whether any protesters were non-violent. Id. Ex. 100 at 215. By Bovino’s logic, anyone who shows up to protest is presumptively violent or assaultive and he can then “go hard” against them. Plaintiffs submitted video and testimonial evidence supporting their claims, which stands unrebutted. See Dkt. 82 at 34-36. There is now more evidence showing Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits, including from the depositions of Hott and Bovino. Hott—shockingly— answered “No” when asked if he agreed “agree that it's unconstitutional to arrest people for being opposed to Midway Blitz?” Ex. 101 at 155. Similarly, Bovino testified that he has instructed his officers to arrest protesters who make hyperbolic comments in the heat of political demonstrations, Ex. 100 at 193-97, even though such statements—which do not constitute true threats—are protected speech. See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969).
November 4, 2025 at 2:00 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Good morning. Federal prosecutors have moved to dismiss another case stemming from protests outside Broadview's ICE facility — this time involving an alleged attack on U.S. Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino.

The feds recently sought extra time to indict in this case.
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the complaint in this matter. Dated: November 3, 2025 FACTS SUPPORTING PROBABLE CAUSE 4. On or about October 3, 2025, at approximately 9:15 a.m., I observed Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) with United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Enforcement and Removal Officers (ERO) with U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Special Agents with Homeland Security Investigations, and other law enforcement clearing the road into and out of the Broadview Service Staging Area (BSSA), an ICE facility used to process individuals apprehended for being unlawfully present in the United States, and surrounding areas in Broadview, Illinois. 5. I was present on scene and observed many protestors in the area of South 25th Avenue at Harvard Street, blocking and crowding the intersection as law enforcement officers were clearing a path for the exit and entry of law enforcement vehicles onto Harvard Street, which leads to the BSSA, in the performance of their official duties. 6. I also reviewed body-worn camera footage from Border Patrol Agent A regarding various arrests made on October 3, 2025. In the video, at approximately 9:23 a.m., Border Patrol Agents encountered SHERIDAN in a grassy area near the entrance to the BSSA parking lot from Harvard Street and 25th Avenue in Broadview. In the body camera video, I observed that the Officers in contact with SHERIDAN wore vests clearly marked with the words “Police” and either “U.S. Border Patrol” and/or “HSI” on their vests. 7. At approximately the 16:04 minute marker on the body-worn camera of Border Patrol Agent A, I observed a tall Caucasian male with red hair (later identified as SHERIDAN), wearing a white helmet and a white multicolored respirator, as well as with a black shirt and black pants, standing with his hands across his body. BPAs, specifically Border Patrol Agent A, are heard in the video directing SHERIDAN to move back. In the video, at one point after Border Patrol Agent A attempts to move SHERIDAN back by nudging his elbow, SHERIDAN responds by picking his hand up and putting it back into the crossed position in a shrug manner and does not move back. 8. Based on my review of Border Patrol Agent A’s body-worn camera, Border Patrol Agent B specifically instructed SHERIDAN to move back several more times. Border Patrol Agent B and other BPAs provided verbal commands, with Border Patrol Agent B saying, “Move back or you’re under arrest.” 9. While others followed the agents’ direction, SHERIDAN is seen in the video not moving and is heard on the recording saying back, “There are people behind me, you fucking idiot.” 10. Border Patrol Agent A is then seen in the video putting his hand on the chest area of SHERIDAN in an attempt to move him back. 11. Border Patrol Agent A stated that SHERIDAN did not obey commands, appeared to lock arms with other protestors on scene, and from his peripheral vision looked like he took a swing at Border Patrol Agent B. Border Patrol Agent A further stated that he witnessed SHERIDAN push Border Patrol Agent B back when Border Patrol Agent B attempted to push SHERIDAN back. Border Patrol Agent A stated that he further witnessed Border Patrol Agent B falling forward and assisted Border Patrol Agent B with the arrest of SHERIDAN. 12. Border Patrol Agent B stated that he recalled SHERIDAN as a protestor around 9:30 to 10:00 a.m., to whom he provided verbal commands to several times to move back as he was attempting to clear the entry and exit way into Harvard St. and South 25th Avenue., leading to the BSSA. Border Patrol Agent B stated that Law Enforcement Officers were attempting to clear a path for the safe entry and exit of law enforcement vehicles, to secure a safe environment. 13. Border Patrol Agent B stated that SHERIDAN was actively resisting verbal commands and physical attempts by law enforcement to move him back. Border Patrol Agent B stated that he then physically attempted to move SHERIDAN back with his hands. Border Patrol Agent B stated that SHERIDAN pushed him back, and that is when Border Patrol Agent B and other Law Enforcement Officers brought SHERIDAN down onto the ground and placed SHERIDAN under arrest. Border Patrol Agent B recalled that the arrest took place on a grassy area near Harvard Street and South 25th Avenue in Broadview. Border Patrol Agent B stated that SHERIDAN did not actively swing at him but pushed back and resisted him. 14. SHERIDAN is also seen in the body-worn camera footage being brought to the ground by Border Patrol Agent B, assisted by several other officers, and placed in custody.
November 4, 2025 at 1:07 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
UPDATE: A new court filing tonight reveals that U.S. Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino's deposition in Chicago is not finished yet.

It's expected to continue Tuesday.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER ALLOWING EQUIPMENT INTO EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE FOR THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT GREGORY BOVINO NOW COME, Plaintiffs, Chicago Headline Club, et al., by their undersigned attorneys, and respectfully requests the entry of an order allowing equipment into the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse for the deposition of Defendant Gregory Bovino. In support of this motion, Plaintiffs state as follows: 1. On October 23, Plaintiffs were granted leave by the Court to depose Defendant Bovino. Dkt.87. 2. The deposition was scheduled to proceed on October 30, 2025 at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse at the request of the United States Attorney’s Office. See Notice, attached as Exhibit A. 3. On October 30, Defendant Bovino’s deposition was commenced and continued to November 3, 2025. 4. On November 3, Defendant Bovino’s deposition was again commenced and continued to November 4, 2025 at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse.
November 4, 2025 at 2:47 AM
jonseidel.bsky.social
#BREAKING The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sides against U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis, who had asked Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino to appear in her Chicago courtroom on a daily basis.

The appeals court finds that her order "infringes on the separation of powers."
After the district court issued a temporary restraining order affecting some aspects of immigration-law enforcement in the Chicago area, the judge on her own motion entered a further order requiring Gregory Bovino, a Chief Patrol Agent at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to appear in court at 5:45 p.m. every weekday “to report on the use of force activities for each day.” The judge justified this order by stating that she had seen videos that led her to question whether the TRO was being obeyed. The order was not, however, a response to any motion by counsel for the plaintiffs (and the videos to which the judge referred apparently do not deal with behavior involving any of the plaintiffs). The federal defendants seek a writ of mandamus with respect to this aspect (and only this aspect) of the district court’s rulings. We issued a stay of the order requiring Chief Bovino to appear and report daily, and we now GRANT the petition for mandamus. While this litigation presents very challenging circumstances, the district court’s order has two principal failings. First, it puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator of the parties’ adversarial presentations. Second, it sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the Executive Branch. These two problems are related and lead us to conclude that the order infringes on the separation of powers. Review by appeal at the end of the case would not solve the problems created in the interim, which justifies review by a prerogative writ. See In re Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 941 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2019). Cf. Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004).
October 31, 2025 at 8:30 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
They also question whether Bovino actually "deserves deference as a high-ranking member of the Executive Branch."
Furthermore, Defendants overstate the extent to which Defendant Bovino himself deserves deference as a high-ranking member of the Executive Branch and, therefore, the extent to whether their case-in-chief has any relevance to the situation at hand. Defendants repeatedly cite Matter of Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 941 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 2019), to argue that the order is an improper intrusion on the Executive Branch. Motion at 3, 11, 12, 14, 17. But Matter of Commodity Futures Trading Commission said that “mandamus is the appropriate remedy when a district court has authorized an inquest into the internal deliberations of the Executive Branch’s senior officials.” Id. at 872 (emphasis added). Despite Defendants’ contention to the contrary, Motion at 14, Defendant Bovino is not the “senior official” that Matter of Commodity Futures Trading Commission had in mind. The Commodity Futures Court found that “the Chairman and two Commissioners [of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission]” were “senior officials” because they were “appointed by the President on advice and consent of the Senate.” 941 F.3d at 872 (7th Cir. 2019). But Defendant Bovino is not close to a Senate-confirmed official, and Defendants’ assertion that he qualifies as a high-ranking official is belied by their admission that he “is often in the field directly supervising law-enforcement personnel conducting immigration- enforcement activity.” Petition at 13. Defendants also fail to explain how Defendant Bovino’s appearing in court a handful of times will deprive an actual high ranking official of “the assistance of their staff.” Petition at 17.
October 30, 2025 at 10:07 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit before Judge Sara Ellis in Chicago have filed their response to the 7th Circuit, over whether Border Patrol Cmdr. Greg Bovino should have to appear in court daily.

They note, as Ellis did, that "Bovino himself has stated publicly" that it "poses no obstacle to his work."
The district court’s administrative appearance requirement does not justify the extraordinary relief that the government seeks. The trial court is not micromanaging the Executive Branch, its administrative order is not the “extraordinarily disruptive requirement” the government contends it is, Motion at 1, and it does not “severely limit” Defendants’ ability to address threats of violence. Petition at 2. Instead, concerned with the lack of regard for judicial authority and court orders, the district court has entered a modest and temporary reporting requirement to enforce its TRO, and to investigate whether Defendants are in contempt of its orders. At each stage of the case, the district court has taken great care to ensure that there is no limitation on executive or law enforcement operations or on lawful uses of force. Defendant Bovino himself has stated publicly that the reporting requirement the government now challenges poses no obstacle to his work. Indeed, he said after the district court’s order that he “looks forward” to reporting to Judge Ellis.
October 30, 2025 at 10:00 PM
jonseidel.bsky.social
Update from U.S. District Chief Judge Virginia Kendall on today's security incident at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse:
Incoming mail and packages sent to the Dirksen Courthouse are routinely screened. Today, at approximately 3:15 p.m. a suspicious package was identified. The United States Marshals Service ordered a shelter in place during the secondary screening of a package. After further investigation, the package was deemed safe. Access to the Courthouse returned to normal at approximately 4:10 p.m.
October 29, 2025 at 10:37 PM