“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The Trump Administration sought to prevent court findings about abusive tactics used by immigration authorities from being used against it in the future.
What has happened in this case?
In the fall of 2025, federal immigration authorities ramped up enforcement activities in Chicago in what became known as “Operation Midway Blitz.” Protesters filed suit against aggressive tactics deployed by authorities such as the use of tear gas. Judge Sara Ellis (who had been nominated by President Obama) issued a preliminary injunction against the authorities, which was appealed by the government and temporarily stayed by the 7th Circuit court of appeals.
By late 2025, all parties agreed that the threat of aggressive enforcement was over for now. The government sought an order vacating the injunction and dismissing the case, so that protesters could not quickly revive the case and use prior district court findings against the government. Trump judges Michael Brennan and Michael Scudder did exactly that in a 2-1 March 2026 opinion in Chicago Headline Club v Noem. Judge Frank Easterbrook, who was nominated by President Reagan, dissented.
What was the rationale of Trump judges Brennan and Scudder for the decision?
In an unsigned opinion, Trump judges Brennan and Scudder maintained that the district court opinion “risks spawning serious legal consequences” if it is not vacated. They maintained that the lower court order was “overbroad” and “constitutionally suspect,” and that if it was not vacated, the original protesters or others could just seek to “reinstate” it based on the original findings. Vacatur, they concluded, would appropriately “wipe the slate clean.”
What did Judge Easterbrook say in dissent?
Judge Easterbrook objected to the way that Trump judges Brennan and Scudder resolved the case. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that a losing party’s decision not to pursue an appeal, as occurred here, “does not support or permit vacatur of a district court’s order.” The proper course, he went on, is not to try to resolve the appellate judges’ unclear concerns, but instead to dismiss the appeal, leave “ in place whatever the district court left in place,” and commit “to the future “ the question of what effect, if any, the district court’s order will have.
.
Why is the result harmful?
The ruling made possible by Trump judges Brennan and Scudder completely wipes out the detailed and careful injunction issued against Trump officials because of the harmful tactics they used against protesters. If similar tactics are used again, this will make it harder to reinstate such an injunction. It also sets a broader precedent concerning vacatur of such injunctions that may risk harm in the future, particularly in the Seventh Circuit, which includes Illnois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.