‘Dangerous’: Appeals court sends message to anti-Trump judges by slapping down ‘constitutionally suspect’ ruling
A federal appeals court has sent a message to anti-Trump district court judges across the nation by slapping down what it called a “constitutionally suspect” attempt by Judge Sara Ellis, who was appointed by Barack Obama, to hamstring President Donald Trump.
The 7th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on a fight regarding the president’s “Operation Midway Blitz,” an immigration law enforcement plan for the Chicago area.
Ellis repeatedly has issued orders limiting the federal officers, including one “absurdly requiring daily court appearances by Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, the Gateway Pundit reported.
The appeals court said Ellis was being “constitutionally suspect” in creating an injunction to restrict riot control weapons like tear gas, mandating body cameras, requiring visible identification for agents and more, a ruling described as “dangerous … given that the left has been working hard to dox and harass ICE agents and their families.”
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley said the ruling “made clear that ‘federal courts to not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch’ and that the district court ‘likely abused its discretion by issuing such a sweeping injunction.'”
He said, “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.”
Ellis, the high court slammed, “improperly made her court an overseer of executive branch operations in the city,” the report said.
The case was launched as a class action lawsuit filed in October by protesters, journalists, and religious leaders against Department of Homeland Security officials, including Bovino. They claimed First and Fourth Amendment violations.
In court, Ellis, an “activist judge,” “accused Bovino of lying under oath about what happened during the protests, including his claim that he was hit by a rock before deploying tear gas in Little Village,” the report said.
Turley noted that the “ongoing struggle” by district judges, who repeatedly “issued nationwide injunctions that were largely rejected by the Supreme Court and appellate courts. These conflicts have continued and the intracourt tensions have increased.”
Turley said the fights created by activist judges were evident in the “virtual haymaker” from the 7th Circuit “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.'”
Ellis claimed to have taken control of the conduct of Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of Homeland Security with her order.
In doing so, she “impermissibly infringes on separation of powers principles,” the appeals court said.
The appeals court “clearly felt that Judge Ellis needed a corrective measure on appeal for her future handling of such cases,” Turley noted, as the opinion said, “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.”