Federal prosecutors abruptly moved to dismiss charges against Marimar Martinez, who was shot seven times by a Border Patrol agent during DHS’s Operation Midway Blitz, and also dropped a separate protest case against a 70-year-old Air Force veteran. The Justice Department cited ongoing evaluation of new facts as evidence disputes mounted, including agent text messages, defense claims about body-camera footage, and alleged mishandling of a key vehicle. DHS has described protesters as violent rioters, but judges have shown skepticism and at least nine cases have been dropped. The 7th Circuit also paused a lower court’s bond-release order for detainees and set arguments for Dec. 2, intensifying judicial oversight of the crackdown and spotlighting potential implications for federal use-of-force policies and supervisory review.
Federal prosecutors moved Thursday to dismiss charges against Marimar Martinez, a 30-year-old Chicago woman shot several times by a U.S. Border Patrol agent during the Department of Homeland Security’s “Operation Midway Blitz.” The motion, filed hours before a status hearing, marked a sharp reversal in a case that had become a focal point for assessing federal tactics and oversight during the metropolitan immigration crackdown.
The incident at the center of the case occurred Oct. 4 on Chicago’s southwest side, in Brighton Park. Prosecutors had alleged Martinez and co-defendant Anthony Ruiz, 21, used their vehicles to strike and box in Border Patrol agent Charles Exum’s SUV. Exum exited his vehicle and opened fire, and Martinez suffered seven gunshot wounds. No officers were seriously injured, according to filings cited in court proceedings.
The U.S. attorney’s office did not elaborate on investigative findings, but spokesman Joseph Fitzpatrick said the office is “constantly evaluating new facts and information relating to cases and investigations arising out of Operation Midway Blitz.” Martinez’s attorney, Christopher Parente, praised the decision to drop the indictment.
Evidence disputes had steadily undercut the government’s posture. During a Nov. 5 hearing, text messages attributed to Exum were introduced in which he bragged about his marksmanship: “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.” Parente asserted body camera footage contradicted the federal narrative of Martinez’s actions, and he accused DHS of releasing “objectively wrong information,” contending that Exum “steered into” Martinez rather than the reverse. He also alleged mishandling of evidence after authorities allowed Exum to drive what Parente called “critical evidence” back to Maine instead of preserving the vehicle in Chicago for examination. It is not clear from the record whether prosecutors relied on that vehicle after the transfer or whether any internal review of evidence handling has been initiated.
Thursday’s dismissal extended beyond the shooting case. Prosecutors also moved to drop charges against Dana Briggs, a 70-year-old Air Force veteran arrested during a protest outside a federal immigration facility in Broadview, west of Chicago. Prosecutors had claimed Briggs refused to move and struck an agent’s arm as the agent pushed back a crowd. Other protesters and activists offered a contrasting account, saying an agent, unprovoked, pushed Briggs to the ground. The dual retreats pointed to broader evidentiary and credibility challenges that judges had already flagged; of more than two dozen protesters arrested for impeding or assaulting federal officers or related offenses since the operation began in September, none has gone to trial and charges have been dropped against at least nine.
DHS, for its part, has characterized protesters as violent rioters and vowed to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. The divergence between that posture and the Justice Department’s dismissals underscores the strain points in interagency coordination when immigration enforcement collides with prosecutorial standards of proof and judicial oversight. The Martinez case, in particular, places DHS use-of-force practices under an implied spotlight: the agent’s texts and the defense’s body-worn camera claims present facts that could trigger supervisory review and raise questions about adherence to policy. Whether DHS or Border Patrol have opened formal use-of-force or supervisory inquiries was not immediately known from public statements.
The crackdown’s legal footprint widened Thursday as well. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals halted a lower court order that would have released on bond hundreds of detained immigrants, a remedy the trial court set after finding the federal government violated a 2022 consent decree governing how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement may make warrantless arrests. Without detailing cases, the government had objected to dozens of names as apparent security risks and noted that some detainees had already been deported. The lower court’s plan anticipated releasing roughly 400 people as soon as Friday on alternative forms of detention, including ankle monitors, after each paid a $1,500 bond. The appeals court scheduled arguments for Dec. 2.
Across the Chicago area, Operation Midway Blitz has sparked public backlash and a bevy of lawsuits, with critics accusing immigration agents of deploying unnecessary force, including pepper balls and tear gas. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the appeals court’s stay a “showing of commonsense,” adding that “lawbreakers are off American streets.” Attorneys for detainees, including the National Immigrant Justice Center, expressed disappointment with the pause but said they would prepare for the upcoming arguments.
The Justice Department’s reversal in the Martinez and Briggs cases signals a recalibration driven by evidentiary realities and judicial skepticism, even as DHS maintains a hardline posture. The evidentiary disputes—texts, body-worn camera assertions, and claims of evidence mishandling—carry implications for federal use-of-force policies, documentation standards, and supervisory review in urban enforcement operations. Next, the 7th Circuit will hear arguments on Dec. 2, while prosecutors continue to evaluate matters arising from Operation Midway Blitz. It remains unclear whether DHS or Border Patrol will launch public-facing reviews of the shooting or related supervisory decisions, but ongoing litigation and appellate oversight will test the operation’s durability in the weeks ahead.
Miles Harrington serves as the Senior Correspondent for Federal Systems & Executive Power at Just Right News, where he brings a disciplined, constitutionalist lens to the inner workings of the American government. With a focus on the mechanics of the federal bureaucracy and the limits of executive authority, Harrington has established himself as a vital voice for readers who value transparency, accountability, and the preservation of the separation of powers.
A native of Richmond, Virginia, Harrington’s perspective is deeply rooted in the traditions of the Old Dominion. Growing up in a city defined by its historical significance and its role as a center of American jurisprudence, he developed an early appreciation for the foundational principles of the Republic. His upbringing in Richmond—a place where the legacy of the Founding Fathers is woven into the landscape—instilled in him a belief that the federal government should remain within its constitutional bounds. This background informs his skepticism of centralized overreach and his commitment to reporting on the ways in which the administrative state impacts the lives of everyday citizens.
In his current role, Harrington specializes in the complexities of federal systems. He doesn’t just report on the headlines of the day; he digs into the structural shifts within the executive branch that often go unnoticed by the mainstream press. Whether he is analyzing the implications of a new federal regulation or investigating the expansion of agency jurisdiction, his work is characterized by a rigorous adherence to the facts and a dedication to the rule of law.
Harrington is perhaps best known for his signature feature series, “How Washington Works.” Through this ongoing project, he demystifies the often-opaque processes of the nation’s capital, pulling back the curtain on the “Deep State” and the unelected officials who wield significant influence over national policy. By breaking down complex legislative maneuvers and executive orders, he empowers Just Right News readers to understand the true levers of power in Washington. His reporting serves as a necessary check on the federal government, ensuring that the actions of those in power are held up to the light of public scrutiny.
Now based in Washington, D.C., Harrington operates at the epicenter of the political world, yet he remains intentionally distanced from the “Beltway bubble.” His proximity to the halls of power allows him to maintain a robust network of sources across the federal landscape, but his heart remains in the principled conservatism of his Virginia roots. He views his role not merely as a reporter, but as a steward of the public trust, dedicated to providing the clarity and context that conservative voters need to navigate an increasingly complex political environment.
Through his sharp analysis and unwavering commitment to the truth, Miles Harrington continues to be a cornerstone of the Just Right News team. His work ensures that the principles of limited government and executive restraint remain at the forefront of the national conversation, providing a crucial service to those who believe in a government that is truly of, by, and for the people.