A federal judge has ruled that more than 30 people arrested during Operation Midway Blitz must be released, finding their detentions violated a consent decree governing warrantless arrests by immigration agents.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings determined that at least 32 arrests contravened the Castañon Nava consent decree, which permits warrantless apprehensions only when there is probable cause to believe someone is unlawfully in the United States and poses a flight risk. The ruling was delivered Friday, with the government ordered to release those affected by noon Thursday.
“As I said many months ago, at the start of Operation Midway Blitz, that over time, we would show that hundreds, if not thousands, of arrests were violations, not only of the consent decree, but also of federal law,” said Mark Fleming, associate director of litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center.
According to the National Immigrant Justice Center, among those improperly arrested without warrants: 11 remain detained; 11 have left the country; and 10 have been released under conditions such as bonds or ankle monitors.
In October, Judge Cummings previously found that federal agents had breached the consent decree with dozens of warrantless arrests during President Donald Trump’s second term. He also mandated officials to provide records on all foreign nationals subjected to such arrests in Chicago’s federal judicial district.
The judge confirmed during a February 13 hearing that the consent decree remains active because attorneys representing plaintiffs—such as the National Immigrant Justice Center and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois—have filed motions alleging ongoing violations. Cummings further ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s new policy on warrantless arrests violates this agreement.
The Castañon Nava consent decree originated from a lawsuit following a 2018 ICE operation in Chicago where most of 156 arrests occurred without warrants. Margarito Castañon Nava initiated legal action after his own detention during a traffic stop in May 2018.
On Friday, Cummings clarified what constitutes a flight risk: “requires a substantial probability based on the facts related to the individual.”
The court reviewed 53 alleged violations presented by plaintiffs. Cummings categorized cases based on whether parties agreed there was no warrant but disagreed about probable cause for flight risk or disputed whether any warrant existed.
Of 27 cases without warrants presented for review—including two stemming from a South Shore apartment raid—Cummings found all but one violated the decree. In these instances, claims by agents that suspects were flight risks due to prior charges or lack of documents did not meet probable cause standards.
One exception involved an individual who allegedly tried to back up his car when approached; however, Fleming called for body camera footage to verify this claim. Fleming noted that in previous requests for footage in similar cases, nine out of ten reviews revealed violations despite initial government denials.
“Frankly, they can’t be trusted,” Fleming said.
In another set where whether warrants existed was disputed (21 cases), six were found in violation. The judge pointed out deficiencies in many field-issued warrants such as missing alien registration numbers and other details.
A recent decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld use of field-issued warrants; however, Judge Cummings stated he could only rule against an arrest if it was clear no warrant existed at all.
Fleming indicated continued opposition to this appellate decision and reported having information on more than 360 detainees believed held in violation of the decree—with many others having already left voluntarily: “It becomes this game of everyone gets shipped out before we get anything,” Fleming told the court.
