7th Circuit Blocks Release of 615 Immigrants One Day Before Court-Ordered Deadline

On November 20, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency administrative stay blocking the release of up to 615 immigrants detained in the Chicago area, just one day before they were scheduled to be freed under a federal district court order. The appellate intervention reversed Judge Jeffrey Cummings’ ruling that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had violated the 2022 Castañon Nava consent decree by making warrantless arrests without probable cause during Operation Midway Blitz.

Judge Cummings’ Original Order

On November 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings issued a comprehensive order requiring the Trump administration to release hundreds of people from ICE detention who had been arrested between June 11 and October 7, 2025, during the massive immigration enforcement operation in the Chicago area.

The order identified 615 individuals who were:

• Not subject to mandatory detention under federal law
• Did not have final orders of removal
• Believed to have been arrested in violation of the Castañon Nava consent decree

Judge Cummings set a November 21 deadline for ICE to release these individuals on $1,500 bonds and enroll them in ICE’s Alternatives to Detention program, which includes electronic monitoring via ankle monitors or smartphone tracking apps while they await immigration court proceedings.

Additionally, the judge ordered the immediate release of 13 individuals by that Friday whom the government had already conceded were unlawfully arrested.

The Castañon Nava Consent Decree

The 2022 Castañon Nava consent decree established strict parameters for ICE warrantless arrests in the Northern District of Illinois following a class action lawsuit filed by the National Immigrant Justice Center and ACLU of Illinois. The decree requires that before making a warrantless arrest, ICE agents must:

1. Establish probable cause that the person is in the country unlawfully
2. Assess the individual’s community ties
3. Evaluate whether the person presents a flight risk

The consent decree was designed to prevent arbitrary immigration arrests and ensure that enforcement actions were based on individualized determinations rather than racial profiling or quota-driven sweeps.

Operation Midway Blitz Arrests

Judge Cummings found that ICE violated the consent decree during Operation Midway Blitz, a massive immigration enforcement operation launched September 8, 2025, in the Chicago area. Immigration attorneys presented evidence that DHS engaged in systematic violations including:

Warrantless Arrests Without Individualized Determinations: ICE agents used administrative warrants (I-200 forms) filled out at arrest scenes rather than based on probable cause established beforehand through investigation.

Workplace and Transit Arrests: Judge Cummings noted that approximately 100 active cases showed “the vast majority” of arrestees were detained “either at work or commuting to and from work,” including landscapers and workers at hardware stores—suggesting enforcement targeted areas where undocumented immigrants were likely to be found rather than individuals who posed specific public safety threats.

Mass Detention Policy: The government implemented a blanket mandatory detention policy for undocumented immigrants who entered without official admission, rather than making individualized custody determinations as required by the consent decree.

Between mid-June and October 7, federal agents arrested 3,368 people in the Chicagoland area during Operation Midway Blitz, with 1,800 placed in ICE detention. Attorneys argued that more than 3,000 arrests violated the consent decree.

7th Circuit Emergency Stay

On November 20, 2025—just one day before the scheduled releases were to begin—the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Trump administration’s emergency motion for an administrative stay.

The brief appellate order:

• Provided no explanation for the decision
• Temporarily blocked all releases pending appeal
• Scheduled oral arguments on the government’s appeal for December 2, 2025

The stay meant that instead of being released the following day, the 615 individuals would remain in ICE detention indefinitely while the appellate court considered the government’s challenge to Judge Cummings’ authority.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The Seventh Circuit’s intervention raised profound questions about judicial oversight of immigration enforcement and the enforceability of consent decrees:

Consent Decree Authority: During the December 2 oral arguments, Trump-appointed Judge Thomas Kirsch II expressed deep skepticism about whether Judge Cummings had authority to enforce the consent decree, stating he was “shocked” that Cummings’ order “acts as if these are two private parties negotiating over the terms of a contract.”

Judge Kirsch’s criticism suggested the appeals panel might view consent decrees as less binding than traditional court orders, potentially allowing agencies to unilaterally withdraw from or ignore the terms of judicially-approved settlement agreements.

Judicial Review of Immigration Enforcement: The stay demonstrated how appellate courts could rapidly reverse district court findings of constitutional violations by immigration enforcement, effectively allowing the executive branch to continue contested practices while appeals proceed—which can take months or years.

Individual Liberty vs. Agency Discretion: The 615 people affected remained detained not because any court found their detention lawful, but because an appellate court chose to preserve the status quo while considering whether the district court had authority to order their release.

Impact on Detainees and Families

The immediate practical effect was devastating for the hundreds of families who had been preparing for reunification:

615 People Remain Detained: Individuals who had been told they would be released within days—many of whom had family members making arrangements for their return—remained in federal detention facilities.

Financial and Emotional Toll: Family members who had already raised the $1,500 bond money faced continued separation and uncertainty about when or whether their loved ones would be released.

Community Fear: The reversal sent a chilling message to immigrant communities that even when federal courts found arrests unlawful, appellate intervention could block relief.

Pattern of Appellate Interference

The Seventh Circuit’s stay was part of a broader pattern during the Trump administration’s second term where appellate courts rapidly intervened to block district court orders restraining immigration enforcement:

• November 19, 2025: 7th Circuit stayed Judge Cummings’ order restricting immigration agents’ use of riot control weapons
• November 20, 2025: 7th Circuit stayed Judge Cummings’ order releasing detainees
• Multiple emergency stays in other circuits blocking preliminary injunctions against immigration raids

This pattern suggested coordination between the Justice Department and conservative appellate judges to minimize the effectiveness of district court oversight, even when lower courts found constitutional violations.

Significance for Rule of Law

The November 20 stay represents a critical moment in the erosion of judicial checks on executive power in immigration enforcement:

Speed of Reversal: The appellate court acted within days of the district court’s order, providing no substantive reasoning but preventing any relief to those found to have been unlawfully detained.

Burden on Detainees: By staying the release order pending appeal, the 7th Circuit effectively required people found to have been unconstitutionally arrested to prove they should be free, rather than requiring the government to prove detention was lawful.

Consent Decree Enforceability: The case threatened to establish precedent that executive agencies could effectively nullify consent decrees by appealing enforcement orders and obtaining stays that allowed continued violations during litigation.

Judicial Independence Under Pressure: The pattern of rapid appellate reversals of immigration enforcement restraints raised questions about whether the federal judiciary could effectively check executive power when appellate panels were ideologically aligned with the administration.

Most fundamentally, the stay demonstrated how procedural mechanisms—emergency motions, administrative stays, deference to executive agencies—could be weaponized to prevent judicial relief even when courts found clear violations of constitutional rights and binding legal agreements.

The 615 people affected by this decision remained detained not because any court found probable cause for their arrests or flight risk justifying their continued custody, but because an appellate court chose to preserve the government’s preferred outcome while it considered whether a district judge had the authority to enforce a consent decree the government had previously agreed to follow.