On August 29, 2017, the state of Illinois filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff sued the City of Chicago under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The plaintiff sought declaratory and ...
read more >
On August 29, 2017, the state of Illinois filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff sued the City of Chicago under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The state brought this action on behalf of the people of Illinois to ensure that the City enacted comprehensive, lasting reform of the Chicago Police Department (CPD), the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA), and the Chicago Police Board (Police Board). The case was assigned to Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert.
The state claimed that, through acts and omissions, the City and its agents maintained policies, customs, or practices of police officers that violated the Fourth Amendment. The state also maintained that certain policies, customs, or practices had a disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos in violation of the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003 and the Illinois Human Rights Act.
The complaint further alleged that these policies, customs, or practices were reflected in, and caused by, the City’s failure to effectively train, supervise, and support law enforcement officers, and the City’s failure to establish reliable programs to detect officer misconduct and administer effective discipline. The state sought injunctive relief to enjoin the City and its agents from engaging in any of the acts forming the basis of the policies, customs, or practices described in the complaint.
On August 31, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings. The parties wished to continue settlement negotiations. The parties stipulated that, if successful, the result of the negotiations would take the form of a consent decree. On September 5, 2017, the court granted the joint motion.
The case is ongoing. As of June 4, 2018, negotiations are still underway. Future settlement conferences are set for June 21, 2018 and July 6, 2018.
Jake Parker - 06/04/2018
compress summary
