A federal judge in Chicago appointed by President Joe Biden is considering ordering Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release thousands of illegal migrants arrested during a major enforcement effort known as “Operation Midway Blitz.”

Judge Jeffrey Cummings, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, said he is weighing what he called “equitable relief” that could require the Department of Homeland Security to release detainees currently under monitoring programs such as ankle bracelets or other court-ordered restrictions.

According to WLS-TV, the case stems from claims by pro-migrant groups that ICE and DHS violated a 2022 consent decree that limits how agents can make arrests without warrants. The agreement was originally reached under the Biden administration after negotiations with the American Civil Liberties Union.

That decree, known as the Castañon Nava settlement, was signed three years ago and has since been used by activist attorneys to challenge immigration enforcement actions nationwide. It restricts ICE officers from detaining certain migrants unless they have verified their immigration status and assessed whether they are considered a flight risk.

Judge Cummings is now reviewing evidence that ICE allegedly violated the settlement’s terms. He has already ruled that federal agents acted against the agreement and indicated that he may issue a sweeping order that could lead to the release of thousands of detainees in Illinois and surrounding states.

Activist attorney Mark Fleming, one of the lawyers pressing the case, said his group’s review found widespread violations by immigration authorities.

“Our initial analysis is that it’s over 3,000 arrests,” Fleming told ABC 7. “We’ve started to dig into the case file that they produced to us, and the vast majority are violations. If they did not have a prior order of removal, in almost all circumstances, they’ve been uniformly violating the consent decree.”

The Department of Homeland Security, however, strongly disagrees with that interpretation. DHS attorneys argue that federal law gives exclusive authority over migrant parole and release to the Secretary of Homeland Security — not to the courts.

In a written response, government attorneys stated, “Congress has vested the authority to grant parole solely with the Secretary of Homeland Security. Federal courts cannot order the Department of Homeland Security to release any aliens on parole because Congress has stripped them of that authority.”

Operation Midway Blitz, the enforcement effort now under review, targeted criminal aliens and fugitives living illegally in the Chicago area. ICE officials say the operation focused on individuals who posed threats to public safety or who had previously ignored removal orders.

But activists allege the arrests went beyond those criteria, sweeping up migrants who had no active deportation cases or whose status was still being reviewed. They argue this violated the narrow limits set by the 2022 agreement that the Biden administration originally accepted.

If Judge Cummings issues a formal order, it could trigger the release of thousands of detainees into the community — many of them individuals ICE agents had deemed dangerous or uncooperative. The ruling could also set a legal precedent for future challenges to federal immigration enforcement nationwide.

The possibility has alarmed law enforcement officials who warn that such a decision would undermine public safety and further strain border and interior operations already overwhelmed by record migration levels.

Cummings has not yet set a date for his final ruling, but attorneys close to the case say it could come within days. Immigration officials are preparing to appeal immediately if the court sides with activists, setting up another legal showdown over the limits of federal authority under the Biden administration.

For now, thousands of cases remain in limbo as DHS waits for word on whether it will be forced to release detainees ICE agents spent months tracking down and arresting. The outcome could reshape the enforcement landscape — and send a signal about how far judges are willing to go in limiting immigration control.