The Trump administration absorbed a series of courtroom defeats this week, each one highlighting a growing reality: federal judges are showing far less patience with the government’s explanations.
The toughest blow came in Chicago. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a sweeping injunction that sharply restricts how federal immigration agents can behave during protests. After reviewing testimony from “Operation Midway Blitz,” Ellis concluded that agents repeatedly violated the First Amendment rights of protesters, clergy, and residents. She said the conduct “shocks the conscience” and described the tear gas, pepper balls, and sudden takedowns shown in court as part of a pattern, not an isolated misstep.
Ellis also dismantled the testimony of Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino, who claimed a protester had thrown a rock at his head. That claim was used to justify a tear gas barrage in Little Village. The judge noted that no video showed a rock being thrown, and when Bovino appeared in court days later, he had no visible injury. Under questioning, his account began to crumble. Ellis said he had lied, and she rejected the government’s broader portrayal of the protests as violent.
Her ruling imposed immediate changes. Agents must identify themselves clearly, and they must activate body cameras during operations. Bovino is now required to wear one, a notable shift for an administration that has pushed back against added oversight.
In Washington, two more cases fell apart. The first was the widely ridiculed “sandwich assault” trial. Federal prosecutors charged protester Sean Dunn with assaulting a federal officer because he tossed a deli sandwich. The officer testified that the sandwich “exploded all over” him, that he could smell “onions and mustard,” and that an onion string later hung from his radio. The testimony drew laughter in the courtroom, and jurors quickly acquitted Dunn. The case appeared inflated from the start, and the verdict reflected that.
Another courtroom brought fresh trouble for the Justice Department’s prosecution of former FBI director James Comey. U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick questioned the entire effort, calling it “highly unusual.” He said it looked like prosecutors had “indicted first and investigated second.” Fitzpatrick ordered the government to immediately release grand jury transcripts and other materials, a strong sign he doubts the structure of the case. Comey’s lawyers say the charges were filed because Trump wanted them, not because of genuine evidence.
Viewed together, these setbacks show an administration struggling to defend its actions once they reach a courtroom. Judges are asking for clear proof, not dramatic claims. Juries are tuning out theatrics. And even longtime prosecutors are being pressed to follow procedure more carefully.
The White House maintains that these losses are isolated. But as similar problems emerge in case after case, in cities large and small, the pattern is hard to ignore. For now, the courts appear increasingly unwilling to accept the government’s narrative without solid facts behind it.
For now, judges across the country seem far more inclined to question the government’s claims than to take them at face value.
