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
Take Care
Case Summary
This lawsuit, filed by the city of Chicago on Aug. 7, 2017, challenged the U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions' imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the city. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the ... read more >
This lawsuit, filed by the city of Chicago on Aug. 7, 2017, challenged the U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions' imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the city. The 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 the 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 more limited. Subsequently, the DOJ threatened to withhold critical federal law enforcement funding, the Byrne JAG Program, from cities, including the plaintiff, that refused to 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 the DOJ was adopting "increasingly aggressive" and unconstitutionally vague definitions of what compliance meant. In a July 25, 2017 press release, as Chicago interpreted it, the 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 city's 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.

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 the 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, the 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, the DOJ responded to Chicago's preliminary injunction motion. The 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. The 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, the DOJ argued, Chicago faced no immediate harm because it had not yet applied to the FY 2017 Byrne JAG Program, and the federal funding constituted a very small fraction of its law enforcement budget. Finally, the 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, the 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. The Court (Judges Bauer, Manion, and Rovner) held oral argument on Jan. 19, 2018.

In the District Court, on Jan. 3, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss. Defendants argued that the challenged conditions are authorized by statute, are consistent with the Spending Clause (as related to the purpose of Byrne JAG funding), do not commandeer Chicago (because it may decline the funds), and do not violate the APA (as not final agency action and not arbitrary and capricious). Chicago responded on Jan. 31, and defendants will reply by Feb. 15.

Also on Jan. 31, Chicago moved for partial summary judgment; defendants responded on Feb. 28, and Chicago replied on Mar. 21. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, on Feb. 22, filed an amicus brief on behalf of Chicago.

The Seventh Circuit, on Apr. 19, upheld the District Court's preliminary injunction (Judges Rovner and Bauer, with Judge Manion concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Court held that the District Court did not err in finding Chicago likely to succeed on the merits (that DOJ lacked the statutory authority to impose the conditions), and did not abuse its discretion in granting a nationwide injunction (because effective relief from this nationwide policy could not be limited to just the City).

Judge Rovner for the majority wrote:

The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement. But the power of the purse rests with Congress, which authorized the federal funds at issue and did not impose any immigration enforcement conditions on the receipt of such funds. [. . .] It falls to us, the judiciary, as the remaining branch of the government, to act as a check on such usurpation of power.


Subsequently, on Apr. 23 in the Seventh Circuit, DOJ moved for a partial stay of the injunction (as applied to localities other than Chicago) pending a rehearing en banc and if necessary a petition for a writ of certiorari. However, the Seventh Circuit denied this motion on Apr. 24. DOJ then petitioned for a rehearing en banc, and also moved for a partial stay pending that rehearing, which was against denied; DOJ again asked for an en banc consideration of the partial stay request. On June 26, 2018, the Seventh Circuit granted the partial stay request, staying the preliminary injunction beyond the City of Chicago.

Meanwhile, on July 26, 2018, the district court (Judge Harry D. Leinenweber) granted the City's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the DOJ's motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and IV, which together alleged that funding conditions are an unconstitutional extension of the DOJ's statutory authority and also an unconstitutional conscription of state power under the anti-commandeering doctrine. The court held that in light of a 2018 Supreme Court decision the anti-commandeering analysis was now "whether Section 1373 'evenhandedly regulates an activity in which both States and private actors engage,' as opposed to regulating activities undertaken by government entities only, thus conscripting state action in the implementation of a federal scheme." The court then held that Section 1373 did not "evenhandedly regulate activities in which both private and government actors engage" because it requested immigration information be provided to the INS by local government employees acting in their official, state-employed capacities. Further, Judge Leinenweber held that the DOJ still had not proven its statutory authority to impose the notice and access funding conditions and so the Seventh Circuit's prior reasoning in affirming the earlier injunction controlled here. The Judge also held that while the compliance funding conditions were likely within statutory authority, they were otherwise unconstitutional and therefore not subject to such analysis. Finally, the court held that the pending Seventh Circuit rehearing did not bar the district court from granting this new injunction, though it limited the injunction to just Chicago.

The DOJ again appealed this latest injunction to the Seventh Circuit. On August 10, 2018, the Seventh Circuit vacated its prior order granting a rehearing en banc to avoid piecemeal appeals. The Seventh Circuit maintained the stay of the earlier injunction until the district court issued a proper injunction under Rule 65, and it indicated it would hear an appeal once there was a final judgment from the lower court. The district court then entered final judgment on Aug. 15 in favor of the City and against the DOJ. Once again, the DOJ appealed.

This case is ongoing in both the district court and the court of appeals.

Ava Morgenstern - 05/05/2018
Virginia Weeks - 09/05/2018


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
Filed Pro Se 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
Filing Year 2017
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 ]

  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: 08/29/2018
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]
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]
Brief for Appellant [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-39] (2017 WL 5957541)
IM-IL-0020-0024.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/28/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee [Ct. of App. ECF# 6892922]
IM-IL-0020-0025.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/28/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 139]
IM-IL-0020-0026.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/03/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Combined Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF# 152]
IM-IL-0020-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/31/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Combined Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Rule 56(d) Request for Discovery [ECF# 167]
IM-IL-0020-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/28/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF# 170]
IM-IL-0020-0030.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/21/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division [Ct. of App. ECF# 111] (2018 WL 1868327)
IM-IL-0020-0031.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/19/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant-Appellant's Motion for Partial Stay of Preliminary Injunction Pending a Petition for Rehearing en Banc and, If Necessary, a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari [Ct. of App. ECF# 115]
IM-IL-0020-0032.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/23/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# 134]
IM-IL-0020-0033.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/26/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 198] (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0020-0034.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/27/2018
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-0020-0034 | 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 | IM-IL-0020-0031
Plaintiff's Lawyers Abbuhl, Joshua (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Cepeda Derieux, Adriel I. (New York)
IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Chaiken, Tal (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | 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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Fitzgerald, John Matthew (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0007 | IM-IL-0020-0016 | IM-IL-0020-0019 | 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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Haussmann, Brian C. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0007 | IM-IL-0020-0016 | IM-IL-0020-0019 | 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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | 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 | IM-IL-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030
Houppert, Justin Anthony (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Kahlon, Nick (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030
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
Kasper, Myriam Zrecny (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0025
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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
O'Brien, Katherine M. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0016 | IM-IL-0020-0019 | IM-IL-0020-9000
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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | 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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | 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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | 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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Solomon, Benna R. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0001 | IM-IL-0020-0002 | IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0025
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 | IM-IL-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030
Starcher, Jack (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
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-0020-0025 | IM-IL-0020-0027 | IM-IL-0020-0030 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Wright, Tiffany (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0013 | IM-IL-0020-0025
Defendant's Lawyers Allen, Katherine T. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0012 | IM-IL-0020-0014 | IM-IL-0020-0021 | IM-IL-0020-0024
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-0020-0026 | IM-IL-0020-0028 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Hinshelwood, Brad (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0032
Lausch, John R. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-0026 | IM-IL-0020-0028 | IM-IL-0020-0032
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 | IM-IL-0020-0024 | IM-IL-0020-0026 | IM-IL-0020-0028 | IM-IL-0020-0032
Simpson, W. Scott (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0003 | IM-IL-0020-0006 | IM-IL-0020-0017 | IM-IL-0020-0026 | IM-IL-0020-0028 | IM-IL-0020-9000
Stern, Mark B. (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0012 | IM-IL-0020-0014 | IM-IL-0020-0021 | IM-IL-0020-0024 | IM-IL-0020-0032
Tenny, Daniel (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0012 | IM-IL-0020-0014 | IM-IL-0020-0021 | IM-IL-0020-0024 | IM-IL-0020-0032
Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-0003 | IM-IL-0020-0006 | IM-IL-0020-0017 | IM-IL-0020-0026
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
Benson, Justin Adam (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Davies, Jamison (New York)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Dent, Jillian Rebecca (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Dufau, Nicholas Stephen (California)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Ehrlich, Lisa Catherine (California)
IM-IL-0020-0023
Fleming, Mark (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Gekas, John C. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Golder, Chad (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Hamill, John J. Jr. (Illinois)
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
Odelson, Burton S. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Olsen, Caroline A. (New York)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Petrocelli, Kelly Ann (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Priedeman, Molly K. (California)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Sandick, Harry (New York)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Schmetterer, Kenneth L. (Illinois)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Schwartz, Michael D. (New York)
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
Walter, Lindsay Nicole (District of Columbia)
IM-IL-0020-9000
Wilder, Robert R. (Illinois)
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 -