University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name City of Chicago v. Sessions IM-IL-0020
Docket / Court 1:17-cv-05720 ( N.D. Ill. )
State/Territory Illinois
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Public Benefits / Government Services
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Case Summary
This action, filed by the city of Chicago on Aug. 7, 2017, challenged U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions' imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the city. Plaintiff, represented by private counsel, filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern ... read more >
This action, filed by the city of Chicago on Aug. 7, 2017, challenged U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions' imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the city. Plaintiff, represented by private counsel, filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In its complaint, Chicago alleged that DOJ was pursuing the federal government's anti-"sanctuary city" policy by new but still unlawful means. Since the narrowing (in Santa Clara) of President Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 Executive Order 13768, the President's ability to place new immigration-related conditions on federal funds was now more limited. Subsequently, DOJ threatened to withhold critical federal law enforcement funding, the Byrne JAG Program, from cities including plaintiff that would not certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. (This section provides that a local government entity cannot prohibit or restrict communication between government entities or officials and federal immigration authorities.)

Chicago alleged its own compliance with § 1373, but argued that DOJ was adopting "increasingly aggressive" and also unconstitutionally vague definitions of what compliance meant. In a Jul. 25, 2017 press release, as Chicago interpreted it, DOJ defined compliance as allowing DHS to enter city correctional or detention facilities, interrogate arrestees about their immigration status, and in doing so hold them longer than justified by probable cause. Such compliance would force Chicago to abandon its longstanding "Welcoming City Ordinance" policy, intended to improve cooperation between immigrant residents and municipal police. The policy restricts Chicago from seeking and disclosing information about residents' immigration status, as well as from honoring ICE detainer requests without an independent public-safety reason to do so.

Chicago alleged that the federal government lacked constitutional or statutory authority to coerce the city to abandon its "Welcoming City Ordinance" policy. Statutorily, Chicago argued that the Byrnes JAG statute did not grant DOJ authority to impose these conditions, and that the APA prohibited DOJ's conduct as arbitrary and capricious and as lacking the requisite notice-and-comment procedure. Constitutionally, Chicago argued that DOJ was usurping the authority both of Congress to spend funds, and of state and local governments to administer their own law enforcement. Thus, Chicago alleged, DOJ was unlawfully coercing the city to choose between accepting the new unconstitutional conditions and losing its "Welcoming" policy to retain funding, or to reject them and lose funding critical for public safety.

The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, Chicago sought a declaration that it complied with § 1373 and that the DOJ's immigration-related conditions on Byrne JAG funding were unconstitutional. Chicago also sought an injunction against the new conditions in advance of the imminent Sept. 5, 2017 deadline to apply for Byrnes JAG funding. A couple of days after filing the complaint, Chicago filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent DOJ from imposing the new conditions.

The case was assigned to Judge Harry D. Leinenweber on Aug. 7.

On Aug. 24, DOJ responded to Chicago's preliminary injunction motion. DOJ argued that Chicago's motion was likely to fail because Congress had expressly authorized the AG to impose these conditions on federal funding, and because all federal funding is also independently conditioned on compliance with federal statutes including §1373. DOJ also asserted that the conditions would not require Chicago to violate the Fourth Amendment because they would not require Chicago to hold an arrestee beyond the time she or he otherwise would have been released. Furthermore, DOJ argued, Chicago faced no immediate harm because it had not yet applied to the FY 2017 Byrne JAG Program and the federal funding in any event constituted a very small fraction of its law enforcement budget. Finally, DOJ maintained, the public interest and balance of equities allowed the federal government to enforce federal law, including immigration law, in its funding programs.

Chicago replied on Aug. 31. Several amici briefs were filed in support of Chicago on Aug. 31-Sept. 1, by the California State Legislature, the County of Santa Clara (California), Cook County (Illinois), legal scholars, prosecutors and law enforcement leaders, businesses, social service providers, and immigrants' rights organizations.

Judge Leinenweber held a preliminary injunction hearing on Sept. 11 and issued an order on Sept. 15, granting in part and denying in part Chicago's motion. Judge Leinenweber found that Chicago had established a likelihood of success on the merits only on challenging the notice and access conditions (by which Chicago had to provide the federal government with notice of and access to detainees), but not the compliance provision. Regarding the former, DOJ's imposition of the conditions exceeded its statutory authority under the Byrne JAG statute, and Chicago had also demonstrated irreparable harm by losing funding. However, regarding the latter, the federal government was authorized to require compliance with applicable federal laws, including § 1373. Judge Leinenweber saw § 1373 as presenting no commandeering problem in violation of federalism because the provision required no mandatory action from Chicago, but rather prohibited Chicago from restricting officials' voluntary cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Finally, in enjoining the notice and access conditions, Judge Leinenweber noted that the injunction applied nationwide. 2017 WL 4081821 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2017).

On Sept. 26, DOJ appealed to the Seventh Circuit and moved to stay the injunction pending the appeal. DOJ argued that the injunction should not be nationwide because Chicago suffered no cognizable injury from conditions imposed on other Byrne JAG applicants. Additionally, DOJ argued that the nationwide injunction would irreparably harm it by forcing it either to abandon the notice and access conditions for all outstanding FY 2017 Byrne JAG applications (even if the conditions were later held lawful), or to suspend the Byrne JAG program pending further litigation.

In response, Judge Leinenweber held a stay hearing. Chicago responded to DOJ's motions on Oct. 6, arguing that the Court had properly enjoined DOJ and the Seventh Circuit was unlikely to disagree. DOJ must answer or otherwise plead by Nov. 20.

On Oct. 6, the U.S. Conference of Mayors moved to intervene as a plaintiff. The Conference, which represents over 1000 mayors nationwide, has adopted a policy opposing federal penalties on sanctuary cities. The Conference argued that a stay would force many cities to individually sue defendants to enjoin the conditions on their own FY2017 Byrne JAG applications. Consequently, the Conference wanted the nationwide injunction to remain in place. DOJ responded on Oct. 27, and the Conference replied on Nov. 3.

On Oct. 13, Judge Leinenweber denied a stay of his Sept. 15 preliminary injunction pending appeal. Judge Leinenweber held that DOJ's "constitutional transgression is national in scope because the notice and access conditions, shown to be likely unconstitutional, were imposed nationwide." Judge Leinenweber found the "extraordinary remedy" of a nationwide injunction appropriate because it was "based on the need for federal uniformity and [because of] the unfairness resulting from disparate applications[,]" and that it would benefit judicial economy. 2017 WL 149847 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2017).

DOJ then immediately went to the Seventh Circuit and sought a partial stay of the nationwide preliminary injunction pending appeal. In this Oct. 13 motion, DOJ argued that the principles of standing and equity limited the injunction to Chicago, so that DOJ could still administer the Byrne JAG grants to other cities during the scheduled FY2017 timeline.

Back in the district court, though, on Oct. 13 Chicago sought partial reconsideration of the Sept. 15 preliminary injunction, specifically the part declining to enjoin the § 1373 condition because it likely did not violate anti-commandeering principles. Chicago alleged that DOJ had contradicted itself, first by representing to the Court that § 1373 imposed no affirmative obligations on plaintiff, but later notifying Chicago that it intended to extend §1373 to Chicago's policy governing whether and under what circumstances to notify federal officials of the release date or custody status of individuals held by Chicago.

Accordingly, in the Seventh Circuit, on Oct. 16 Chicago moved to suspend briefing, arguing that the Seventh Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction until the district court ruled on Chicago's partial reconsideration motion. On Oct. 18, DOJ opposed this motion, and Illinois and California moved to file amici briefs in support of Chicago. The Seventh Circuit (Judges Bauer, Manion, and Rovner) then, on Oct. 20, granted Chicago's motion to suspend briefing until the district court ruled on Chicago's partial reconsideration motion.

In the district court, Judge Leinenweber had held an Oct. 17 motion hearing on Chicago's motion for partial reconsideration. DOJ responded on Oct. 23; Chicago replied on Oct. 30.

Also in the district court, in briefs filed on Oct. 23 and Nov. 3, the U.S. Conference of Mayors moved for a preliminary injunction, repeating the reasoning that the Court had used in granting preliminary injunction order for Chicago, and the arguments that Chicago had made in its motion for partial reconsideration.

After a Nov. 16 motion hearing, Judge Leinenweber denied Chicago's motion for partial reconsideration and the U.S. Conference of Mayors' motion to intervene as a plaintiff. In his opinion, Judge Leinenweber first upheld his denial to enjoin the § 1373 compliance condition on the Byrne JAG grant. He stated that DOJ's correspondence with Chicago as to DOJ's interpretation of § 1373 would not alter the Court's facial analysis of the provision. Turning next to the Conference's motion, Judge Leinenweber held that although the Conference had standing, it could not intervene as a plaintiff because it could not demonstrate that its interests would be impaired without intervention.

The next day, DOJ asked the Seventh Circuit to exercise its jurisdiction and consider DOJ's motion for a partial stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. However, the Seventh Circuit (Judges Bauer, Manion, and Rovner) denied DOJ's motion on Nov. 21.

Briefing in the Seventh Circuit proceeded with DOJ's brief due Nov. 28, Chicago's opposition Dec. 28, and DOJ's reply Jan. 11. The States of California and Illinois also filed a Nov. 21 amicus brief in support of Chicago. Oral argument is scheduled for Jan. 19, 2018.

The next status conference in the District Court will be Feb. 8, 2018.

This case is ongoing, with pending consideration in both the district court and the court of appeals.

Ava Morgenstern - 12/16/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Federalism
Unreasonable search and seizure
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
General
Funding
Government Services (specify)
Over/Unlawful Detention
Placement in detention facilities
Public assistance grants
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration/Border
Border police
Constitutional rights
Deportation - criteria
Deportation - procedure
Detention - criteria
Detention - procedures
ICE/DHS/INS raid
Sanctuary city/state
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
Plaintiff Type
City/County Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Justice
Plaintiff Description City of Chicago
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Order Duration 2017 - n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Mayor Emanuel, City of Chicago Announce Legal Victory as Federal Judge Grants Nationwide Preliminary Injunction Against President Trump's New Conditions on Public Safety Grant Funding
www.cityofchicago.org
Date: Sep. 15, 2017
By: City of Chicago
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
www.dhs.gov
Date: Sep. 5, 2017
By: Department of Homeland Security (Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Implementation of Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
The Washington Post
Date: May 22, 2017
By: Jefferson Sessions (U.S. Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
Citation: 82 Fed. Reg. Presidential Documents 8793 (Jan. 27, 2017)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 25, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:17-cv-5720 (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0020-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint For Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-IL-0020-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Chicago's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 21]
IM-IL-0020-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/10/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 32]
IM-IL-0020-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply Brief In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 69]
IM-IL-0020-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/31/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 78] (2017 WL 4081821 / 2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 149847) (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0020-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 09/15/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Stay Nationwide Application of Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 81]
IM-IL-0020-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/26/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
The United States Conference of Mayors' Motion to Intervene [ECF# 91]
IM-IL-0020-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay Nationwide Application of Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 94]
IM-IL-0020-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant-Appellant's Motion For Partial Stay of Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-8]
IM-IL-0020-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 98] (2017 WL 149847 / 2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 169518) (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0020-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Chicago's Motion for Partial Reconsideration [ECF# 99]
IM-IL-0020-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum of Law in Support of Chicago's Motion for Partial Reconsideration [ECF# 101] (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0020-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion to Suspend Briefing On and Consideration of Defendant-Appellant's Motion For Partial Stay Pending Appeal [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-10]
IM-IL-0020-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/16/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant-Appellant's Opposition to Plaintiff-Appellee's Motion to Stay Briefing On and Consideration of Defendant-Appellant's Motion For a Partial Stay Pending Appeal [Ct. of App. ECF# 24]
IM-IL-0020-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-27]
IM-IL-0020-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
The United States Conference of Mayors' Motion For a Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 109]
IM-IL-0020-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Reconsideration [ECF# 110]
IM-IL-0020-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Reconsideration [ECF# 114]
IM-IL-0020-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/30/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
The United States Conference of Mayors' Reply In Further Support of Its Motion to Intervene [ECF# 118]
IM-IL-0020-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/03/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 125] (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0020-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/16/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply In Support of Defendant-Appellant's Motion For Partial Stay of Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-30]
IM-IL-0020-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-33]
IM-IL-0020-0022.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of States of California and Illinois as Amici Curiae In Support of City of Chicago's Response to Defendant-Appellant's Motion For Partial Stay of Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and Against the Stay [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-34]
IM-IL-0020-0023.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/21/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Bauer, William Joseph (N.D. Ill., Seventh Circuit)
IM-IL-0020-0015 | IM-IL-0020-0022
Leinenweber, Harry Daniel (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0020-0005 | IM-IL-0020-0009 | IM-IL-0020-0020 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Manion, Daniel Anthony (Seventh Circuit)
IM-IL-0020-0015 | IM-IL-0020-0022
Rovner, Ilana Kara Diamond (N.D. Ill., Seventh Circuit)
IM-IL-0020-0015 | IM-IL-0020-0022
Plaintiff's Lawyers Adegbile, Debo Patrick (New York)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Cepeda Derieux, Adriel I. (New York)
IM-IL-0020-0013
Crowl, Matthew Charles (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0010 | IM-IL-0020-0011 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Fahey, Bridget (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Gorelick, Jamie S. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Holtzblatt, Ari (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Houppert, Justin A. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0010 | IM-IL-0020-0011 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018
Jennings, Molly (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Kahlon, Harnaik Singh (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0010 | IM-IL-0020-0011 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Kleinman, Laura A. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0010 | IM-IL-0020-0011 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
O'Brien, Katherine M. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0016 | IM-IL-0020-0019
Ogden, David W. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Safer, Ronald S. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0010 | IM-IL-0020-0011 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Savitzky, Ari J. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Siskel, Edward N. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0010 | IM-IL-0020-0011 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Solomon, Benna R. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0013
Spears, Scott D. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0010 | IM-IL-0020-0011 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018
Worseck, Andrew W (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0004 | IM-IL-0020-0008 | IM-IL-0020-0010 | IM-IL-0020-0011 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0018 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Wright, Tiffany (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0013
Defendant's Lawyers Allen, Katherine T. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0012 | IM-IL-0020-0014 | IM-IL-0020-0021
Buckingham, Stephen J. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0003 | IM-IL-0020-0006 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Garg, Arjun (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0003 | IM-IL-0020-0006 | IM-IL-0020-0017 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Levin, Joel R. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0003 | IM-IL-0020-0006 | IM-IL-0020-0012 | IM-IL-0020-0014 | IM-IL-0020-0017 | IM-IL-0020-0021
Readler, Chad A. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0003 | IM-IL-0020-0006 | IM-IL-0020-0012 | IM-IL-0020-0014 | IM-IL-0020-0017 | IM-IL-0020-0021
Simpson, W. Scott (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0003 | IM-IL-0020-0006 | IM-IL-0020-0017
Stern, Mark B. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0012 | IM-IL-0020-0014 | IM-IL-0020-0021
Tenny, Daniel (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0012 | IM-IL-0020-0014 | IM-IL-0020-0021
Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0003 | IM-IL-0020-0006 | IM-IL-0020-0017
Other Lawyers Apostolides, George P. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Badlani, Chirag (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Becerra, Xavier (California)
IM-IL-0020-0023
Belton, Sarah (California)
IM-IL-0020-0023
Dent, Jillian Rebecca (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Ehrlich, Lisa Catherine (California)
IM-IL-0020-0023
Fitzgerald, John Matthew (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0007 | IM-IL-0020-0016 | IM-IL-0020-0019 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Gekas, John C. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Hamill, John J. Jr. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Haussmann, Brian C. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0007 | IM-IL-0020-0016 | IM-IL-0020-0019 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Hoffman, David Henry (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Malone, Edward Francis (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Nandi, Neil Gerard (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Narayan, Kavita Kandala (California)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Petrocelli, Kelly Ann (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Sandick, Harry (New York)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Schmetterer, Kenneth L. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Sherman, Lee Isaac (California)
IM-IL-0020-0023
Sierra, Angela (California)
IM-IL-0020-0023
Sudzus, David B. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Tabet, Caesar A. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Trice, Laura Susan (California)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Yanai, Satoshi (California)
IM-IL-0020-0023
Zionts, David M. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -