Case: City of Chicago v. Sessions

1:17-cv-05720 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Aug. 7, 2017

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This lawsuit, filed by the city of Chicago on August 7, 2017, challenged the federal government's imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the city. The plaintiff, represented by its corporation counsel and private counsel, sued the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.In its complaint, Chicago alleged that the DOJ was pursuing the federal government's anti-"sanctu…

This lawsuit, filed by the city of Chicago on August 7, 2017, challenged the federal government's imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the city. The plaintiff, represented by its corporation counsel and private counsel, sued the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

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 January 25, 2017 Executive Order 13768, the President's ability to place new immigration-related conditions on federal funds was limited. Nevertheless, the DOJ threatened to withhold federal law enforcement funding—the Byrne JAG Program—from cities, including Chicago, 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 it complied 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 restricted 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 the DOJ authority to impose these conditions, and that the APA prohibited the 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 September 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 the DOJ from imposing the new conditions.

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

On August 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.

Several amici briefs were filed in support of Chicago on August 31-September 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 September 11 and issued an order on September 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 (related to § 1373). Regarding the former, the Judge found that the 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, he held that 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 September 26, the DOJ appealed to the Seventh Circuit and moved to stay the injunction pending the appeal. The DOJ argued that the injunction should not be nationwide in scope because Chicago suffered no cognizable injury from conditions imposed on other Byrne JAG applicants. Additionally, the 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.

On October 6, the U.S. Conference of Mayors moved to intervene as a plaintiff. The Conference, which represents over 1000 mayors nationwide, had 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.

On October 13, Judge Leinenweber denied the government's request for a stay of his September 15 preliminary injunction pending appeal. Judge Leinenweber held that the 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).

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

Back in the district court, on October 13, Chicago sought partial reconsideration of the September 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 the 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 October 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 October 18, the DOJ opposed this motion, and Illinois and California moved to file amici briefs in support of Chicago. On October 20, the Seventh Circuit granted Chicago's motion to suspend briefing until the district court ruled on Chicago's partial reconsideration motion.

Back in the district court, the U.S. Conference of Mayors moved for a preliminary injunction, repeating the reasoning that the Court had used in granting the preliminary injunction order for Chicago, and the arguments that Chicago had made in its motion for partial reconsideration.

On November 16, 2017, Judge Leinenweber denied Chicago's motion for partial reconsideration and the U.S. Conference of Mayors' motion to intervene as a plaintiff. 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, the DOJ asked the Seventh Circuit to exercise its jurisdiction and consider the DOJ's motion for a partial stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. However, the Seventh Circuit denied the DOJ's motion on November 21.

Briefing in the Seventh Circuit proceeded, with the States of California and Illinois filing an amicus brief in support of Chicago.

In the District Court, on January 3, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss. The defendants argued that the challenged conditions were authorized by statute, were consistent with the Spending Clause (as related to the purpose of Byrne JAG funding), did not commandeer Chicago (because it may decline the funds), and did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (as not final agency action and not arbitrary and capricious).

On January 31, Chicago moved for partial summary judgment; fifteen states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief on behalf of Chicago.

On April 19, 2018, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court's preliminary injunction. 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). 888 F.3d 272.

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, in the Seventh Circuit, the 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 April 24. The DOJ then petitioned for a rehearing en banc, and also moved for a partial stay pending that rehearing, which was again denied; the DOJ again asked for an en banc reconsideration of the partial stay request. On June 4, 2018, the Seventh Circuit granted the partial stay request, staying the preliminary injunction beyond the City of Chicago. 2018 WL 4268817.

Meanwhile, on July 27, 2018, the district court granted the City's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the DOJ's motion to dismiss. 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 § 1373 violated the Tenth Amendment on its face because it did not "evenhandedly regulate activities in which both private and government actors engage;" rather, it requested immigration information be provided to federal authorities 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. 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 pending the Seventh Circuit's rehearing en banc. 321 F.Supp.3d 855.

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 in order to avoid piecemeal appeals. The Court found that because of the district court's July 27 decision (and its intent to enter a permanent injunction), the preliminary injunction had become meaningless and the appeals process needed to restart. So, the Court maintained the stay of the nationwide scope of the earlier injunction until the district court issued a proper permanent injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and it indicated it would hear an appeal once there was a final judgment from the lower court. 2018 WL 4268814.

The district court then entered final judgment on August 15, 2018 in favor of the City and against the DOJ. Once again, the DOJ appealed to the Seventh Circuit (docket no. 18-02885).

The Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on April 10, 2019.

On October 12, 2018, the City of Chicago had filed another lawsuit in this district court, again challenging the imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding, but for FY2018 grants (City of Chicago v. Sessions III). The case was also assigned to Judge Leinenweber. The challenged conditions in that case were almost identical to those presented here, and on September 19, 2019, Judge Leinenweber granted summary judgment to the city of Chicago and entered a permanent injunction. The nationwide scope of that injunction was also stayed due to the pending appeal of the injunction in this case. The government also appealed that injunction to the Seventh Circuit.

Consequently, on November 20, 2019, the Seventh Circuit ordered the appeals in these two cases to be consolidated for purpose of disposition.

On April 30, 2020, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Judge Leinenweber's grant of injunctive relief to Chicago and extended it nationwide. The Court found that while the executive branch has significant powers in the realm of immigration, it does not have Congress' power of the purse and thus cannot withhold Byrne JAG grants in order to force Chicago to alter its behavior. The Court affirmed the district court's grants of declaratory relief to Chicago, finding that the Attorney General exceeded the authority delegated to him by Congress in imposing the challenged conditions to the FY2017 and FY2018 grants, and that the Attorney General's decision to impose the conditions in both years violated the separation of powers.

The Court found it unnecessary to reach the constitutionality of § 1373 under the anti-commandeering doctrine. The government had relied on language in 34 U.S.C. § 10153 to support its imposition of the compliance condition. § 10153 states that in a request for a grant, the application shall include a certification that the applicant "will comply with all provisions of this part and all other applicable Federal laws." The government had argued that the reference to "all other applicable Federal laws" allowed it to require that applicants certify compliance with § 1373. However, the Seventh Circuit disagreed with this interpretation and instead found that the phrase could not be construed so broadly as to encompass all federal laws that applied to states or localities, including federal immigration statutes.

The Court also held that a nationwide injunction was proper due to the interconnected nature of applicants for the Byrne JAG grants. In order for the grant amounts to be properly calculated for Chicago, the Court held that the unlawful conditions could not be imposed elsewhere. Finally, the Court remanded for the district court to determine whether any other injunctive relief was appropriate in light of its determination that § 10153 could not be used to incorporate laws unrelated to the grants or grantees. 957 F.3d 772.

The case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Ava Morgenstern (5/5/2018)

Virginia Weeks (9/5/2018)

Sam Kulhanek (5/14/2020)

Related Cases

City of Chicago v. Sessions III, Northern District of Illinois (2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6133859/parties/the-city-of-chicago-v-sessions-iii/


Judge(s)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Garza, Reynaldo Guerra (Texas)

Leinenweber, Harry Daniel (Illinois)

Manion, Daniel Anthony (Indiana)

Rovner, Ilana Kara Diamond (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abbuhl, Joshua (District of Columbia)

Adegbile, Debo Patrick (New York)

Cepeda Derieux, Adriel I. (New York)

Chaiken, Tal (Illinois)

Crowl, Matthew Charles (Illinois)

Judge(s)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Garza, Reynaldo Guerra (Texas)

Leinenweber, Harry Daniel (Illinois)

Manion, Daniel Anthony (Indiana)

Rovner, Ilana Kara Diamond (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abbuhl, Joshua (District of Columbia)

Adegbile, Debo Patrick (New York)

Cepeda Derieux, Adriel I. (New York)

Chaiken, Tal (Illinois)

Crowl, Matthew Charles (Illinois)

Fahey, Bridget (District of Columbia)

Gorelick, Jamie S. (District of Columbia)

Holtzblatt, Ari (District of Columbia)

Houppert, Justin A. (District of Columbia)

Jennings, Molly (District of Columbia)

Kahlon, Harnaik Singh (Illinois)

Kasper, Myriam Zrecny (Illinois)

Kleinman, Laura A. (Illinois)

O'Brien, Katherine M. (Illinois)

Ogden, David W. (District of Columbia)

Safer, Ronald S. (Illinois)

Savitzky, Ari J. (District of Columbia)

Siskel, Edward N. (Illinois)

Solomon, Benna R. (Illinois)

Spears, Scott D. (Illinois)

Starcher, Jack (District of Columbia)

Worseck, Andrew W (Illinois)

Wright, Tiffany (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Allen, Katherine T. (District of Columbia)

Buckingham, Stephen J. (District of Columbia)

Garg, Arjun (District of Columbia)

Hinshelwood, Brad (District of Columbia)

Lausch, John R. (Illinois)

Levin, Joel R. (Illinois)

Mauler, Daniel (District of Columbia)

Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia)

Simpson, W. Scott (District of Columbia)

Stern, Marc (District of Columbia)

Tenny, Daniel (District of Columbia)

Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Apostolides, George P. (Illinois)

Badlani, Chirag (Illinois)

Bass Ehler, Karyn L. (Illinois)

Becerra, Xavier (California)

Belton, Sarah (California)

Benson, Justin Adam (District of Columbia)

Davies, Jamison (New York)

Dent, Jillian Rebecca (Illinois)

Dufau, Nicholas Stephen (California)

Ehrlich, Lisa Catherine (California)

Fitzgerald, John Matthew (Illinois)

Fleming, Mark (Illinois)

Gekas, John C. (Illinois)

Golder, Chad (District of Columbia)

Hamill, John J. Jr. (Illinois)

Haussmann, Brian C. (Illinois)

Hendrickson, Cara (Illinois)

Hoffman, David Henry (Illinois)

Kinkead, Darren Bernens (Illinois)

Malone, Edward Francis (Illinois)

Martin, Matthew J. (Illinois)

Nandi, Neil Gerard (Illinois)

Narayan, Kavita Kandala (California)

Odelson, Burton S. (Illinois)

Olsen, Caroline A. (New York)

Petrocelli, Kelly Ann (Illinois)

Priedeman, Molly K. (California)

Sandick, Harry (New York)

Schmetterer, Kenneth L. (Illinois)

Schwartz, Michael D. (New York)

Sherman, Lee Isaac (California)

Sierra, Angela (California)

Sudzus, David B. (Illinois)

Tabet, Caesar A. (Illinois)

Trice, Laura Susan (California)

VanDam, Jeff (Illinois)

Walter, Lindsay Nicole (District of Columbia)

Wilder, Robert R. (Illinois)

Witherspoon, Jeanne (Illinois)

Yanai, Satoshi (California)

Zionts, David M. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:17-cv-05720

Docket [PACER]

The City of Chicago v. Sessions III

May 18, 2020

May 18, 2020

Docket
1

1:17-cv-05720

Complaint For Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

Complaint
21

1:17-cv-05720

Chicago's Motion for Preliminary Injunction

The City of Chicago v. Session III

Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

Pleading / Motion / Brief
32

1:17-cv-05720

Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction

Aug. 24, 2017

Aug. 24, 2017

Pleading / Motion / Brief
69

1:17-cv-05720

Reply Brief In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

Pleading / Motion / Brief
78

1:17-cv-05720

Memorandum Opinion and Order

The City of Chicago v. Sessions

264 F.Supp.3d 933, 2017 WL 4081821, 2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 149847

Sept. 15, 2017

Sept. 15, 2017

Order/Opinion
81

1:17-cv-05720

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Stay Nationwide Application of Preliminary Injunction

Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

Pleading / Motion / Brief
91

1:17-cv-05720

The United States Conference of Mayors' Motion to Intervene

Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Pleading / Motion / Brief
94

1:17-cv-05720

Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay Nationwide Application of Preliminary Injunction

Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Pleading / Motion / Brief
99

1:17-cv-05720

Chicago's Motion for Partial Reconsideration

The City of Chicago v. Sessions III

Oct. 13, 2017

Oct. 13, 2017

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6133859/the-city-of-chicago-v-sessions-iii/

Last updated May 31, 2022, 3:23 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
16

SUMMONS Issued as to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, U.S. Attorney. (tt, ) (Entered: 08/08/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER

case assigned

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
15

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13451085. (Adegbile, Debo) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
14

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff The City of Chicago by Edward N Siskel (Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
13

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13450767. (Fahey, Bridget) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
12

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13450712. (Jennings, Molly) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
11

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13450651. (Savitzky, Ari) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
10

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13450359. (Holtzblatt, Ari) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
9

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff The City of Chicago by Harnaik Singh Kahlon (Kahlon, Harnaik) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Michael T. Mason. (meg, )

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
8

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13450224. (Ogden, David) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
7

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13450122. (Jamie, Gorelick) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
6

NOTICE by The City of Chicago of Claims of Unconstitutionality (Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
5

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff The City of Chicago by Laura A Kleinman (Kleinman, Laura) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
4

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff The City of Chicago by Matthew Charles Crowl (Crowl, Matthew) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
3

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff The City of Chicago by Andrew W Worseck (Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
2

CIVIL Cover Sheet (Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

PACER
1

COMPLAINT filed by The City of Chicago; Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-13449393. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

Aug. 7, 2017

Aug. 7, 2017

RECAP
17

AFFIDAVIT of Service filed by Plaintiff The City of Chicago regarding Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint; Exhibits served on David Burroughs, Mail Clerk Supervisor & Authorized Agent, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20530 on August 7, 2017 (Crowl, Matthew) (Entered: 08/08/2017)

Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

PACER
18

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff The City of Chicago by Ronald S. Safer (Safer, Ronald) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

Aug. 9, 2017

Aug. 9, 2017

PACER
27

DECLARATION of Andrew W. Worseck regarding motion for preliminary injunction 21 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G

View on PACER

8 Exhibit H

View on PACER

9 Exhibit I

View on PACER

Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

PACER
26

Request for Judicial Notice by The City of Chicago in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q)(Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G

View on PACER

8 Exhibit H

View on PACER

9 Exhibit I

View on PACER

10 Exhibit J

View on PACER

11 Exhibit K

View on PACER

12 Exhibit L

View on PACER

13 Exhibit M

View on PACER

14 Exhibit N

View on PACER

15 Exhibit O

View on PACER

16 Exhibit P

View on PACER

17 Exhibit Q

View on PACER

Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

RECAP
25

DECLARATION of Larry Sachs regarding motion for preliminary injunction 21 (Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

PACER
24

DECLARATION of Lt. Kevin R. Hannigan regarding motion for preliminary injunction 21 (Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

PACER
23

MEMORANDUM by The City of Chicago in support of motion for preliminary injunction 21 (Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

RECAP
22

NOTICE of Motion by Edward N Siskel for presentment of motion for preliminary injunction 21 before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 8/15/2017 at 09:30 AM. (Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

PACER
21

MOTION by Plaintiff The City of Chicago for preliminary injunction (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

PACER
20

NOTICE of Motion by Edward N Siskel for presentment of motion to expedite 19 before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 8/15/2017 at 09:30 AM. (Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

PACER
19

MOTION by Plaintiff The City of Chicago to expedite Briefing Schedule and Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Oversized Brief (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

PACER
28

MEMORANDUM by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III in Opposition to motion to expedite 19 (Attachments: # 1 Excerpt from 2015 DOJ Grants Financial Guide)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

1 Excerpt from 2015 DOJ Grants Financial Guide

View on PACER

Aug. 14, 2017

Aug. 14, 2017

RECAP
29

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber:Motion hearing held on 8/15/2017. The City's Motion to expedite briefing schedule 19 is denied. The Unopposed motion to file oversized brief is granted. Defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction to be filed by 8/24/2017. Plaintiff's reply brief to be filed by 8/31/2017. Any Amicus Curiae brief to be filed by 8/31/2017. Preliminary Injunction hearing set for 9/11/2017 at 10:00 a.m. The Applications of Jamie S. Gorelick, David W. Ogden, Ari J. Holtzblatt, Ari J. Savitzky, Molly M. Jennings, Bridget Fahey and and Debo P. Adegbile to appear pro hac vice [7,8,10,11,12,13,15] are granted. Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

Aug. 15, 2017

Aug. 15, 2017

PACER
30

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 08/15/2017 before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber. Court Reporter Contact Information: Judith A. Walsh, CSR, RDR, F/CRR, Official Court Reporter. judith_walsh@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 9/8/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/18/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/16/2017. (Walsh, Judy) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

Aug. 18, 2017

Aug. 18, 2017

PACER
31

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III by Stephen Joseph Buckingham (Buckingham, Stephen) (Entered: 08/23/2017)

Aug. 23, 2017

Aug. 23, 2017

RECAP
32

MEMORANDUM by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III in Opposition to motion for preliminary injunction 21 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Buckingham, Stephen) (Entered: 08/24/2017)

1 Exhibit 1

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit 2

View on RECAP

Aug. 24, 2017

Aug. 24, 2017

RECAP
33

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III by Arjun Garg (Garg, Arjun) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

PACER
36

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13531407. (Narayan, Kavita) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

PACER
35

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13531161. (Trice, Laura) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

PACER
34

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13528239. (Zionts, David) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

PACER
71

DECLARATION of Bridget Fahey regarding reply to response to motion 69, motion for preliminary injunction 21 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Fahey, Bridget) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
70

Second Request for Judicial Notice by The City of Chicago in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q)(Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G

View on PACER

8 Exhibit H

View on PACER

9 Exhibit I

View on PACER

10 Exhibit J

View on PACER

11 Exhibit K

View on PACER

12 Exhibit L

View on PACER

13 Exhibit M

View on PACER

14 Exhibit N

View on PACER

15 Exhibit O

View on PACER

16 Exhibit P

View on PACER

17 Exhibit Q

View on PACER

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
69

REPLY by The City of Chicago to memorandum in opposition to motion 32 in support of Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Statutory Addendum)(Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

1 Statutory Addendum

View on PACER

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
68

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13538028. (Walter, Lindsay) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
67

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13538026. (Benson, Justin) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
66

MOTION by Amicus Cook CountyBRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE COOK COUNTY AND OTHER AMICI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Hoffman, David). (Entered: 08/31/2017)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
65

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Cook County by Neil Gerard Nandi (Nandi, Neil) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
64

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Cook County by Jillian Rebecca Dent (Dent, Jillian) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
63

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Cook County by David Henry Hoffman (Hoffman, David) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
62

MEMORANDUM by National Immigrant Justice Center in support of motion for preliminary injunction 21 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-G)(Fleming, Mark) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

1 Exhibit A-G

View on RECAP

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

RECAP
61

MEMORANDUM by Erie Neighborhood House in support of motion for preliminary injunction 21 [Brief of Amicus Curiae in support of motion for preliminary injunction] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sudzus, David) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
60

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Erie Neighborhood House by David B. Sudzus (Sudzus, David) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
59

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Erie Neighborhood House by Kelly Ann Petrocelli (Petrocelli, Kelly) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
58

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Immigration Law Scholars by Edward Francis Malone (Malone, Edward) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
57

NOTICE of Motion by John C. Gekas for presentment of motion for leave to file,, 56 before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 9/7/2017 at 09:30 AM. (Gekas, John) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
56

MOTION by Amicus The California State Legislature for leave to file Unopposed Motion of the California State Legislature for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Brief of the California State Legislature as Amicus Curiae In Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Exhibit 1-A: Letter from Hon. J. Sessions and Hon. J. Kelly to Hon. T. Cantil-Sakauye, # 3 Exhibit 1-B: Letter from E. Holder to Hon. J. Sessions)(Gekas, John) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

1 Exhibit 1: Brief of the California State Legislature as Amicus Curiae In Suppor

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 1-A: Letter from Hon. J. Sessions and Hon. J. Kelly to Hon. T. Cantil-

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 1-B: Letter from E. Holder to Hon. J. Sessions

View on PACER

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
55

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus County of Santa Clara by John Matthew Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald, John) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
54

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus The California State Legislature by George P. Apostolides (Apostolides, George) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
53

MEMORANDUM by Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Immigration Law Scholars in support of motion for preliminary injunction 21 (Brief Amici Curiae) (Sandick, Harry) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
52

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus County of Santa Clara by Caesar A. Tabet (Tabet, Caesar) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
51

08.31.17 Brief of Amici Curiae by County of Santa Clara (Haussmann, Brian) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

RECAP
50

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus County of Santa Clara by Brian C Haussmann (Haussmann, Brian) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
49

Brief of Amicus Curiae Illinois Business Immigration Coalition In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction Relief - by Illinois Business Immigration Coalition (Hamill, John) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
48

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13535780. - Illinois Business Immigration Coalition (Dufau, Nicholas) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
47

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13535748. - Illinois Business Immigration Coalitition (Priedeman, Molly) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
46

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13535680. - Illinois Business Immigration Coalition (Golder, Chad) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
45

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Illinois Business Immigration Coalition by Kenneth L. Schmetterer (Schmetterer, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
44

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Illinois Business Immigration Coalition by John J. Hamill, Jr (Hamill, John) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
43

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber:The Applications of David M. Zionts, Laura S. Trice and Kavita Narayan to appear pro hac vice [34, 35, 36] are granted. Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
42

Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Current and Former Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Leaders (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Badlani, Chirag) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

1 Exhibit A

View on RECAP

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

RECAP
41

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Current and Former Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Leaders by Chirag Gopal Badlani (Badlani, Chirag) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
40

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus The California State Legislature by John C. Gekas (Gekas, John) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
39

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13533800. (Davies, Jamison) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

RECAP
38

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-13533779. (Schwartz, Michael) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
37

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Immigration Law Scholars by Harry Sandick (Sandick, Harry) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

PACER
72

Brief as Amicus Curiae by The California State Legislature in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Letter from Hon. J.Sessions & Hon. J. Kelly to Hon. T. Cantil-Sakauye, # 2 Exhibit B-Letter from E. Holder to Hon.J. Sessions)(Gekas, John) (Entered: 09/01/2017)

1 Exhibit A Letter from Hon. J.Sessions & Hon. J. Kelly to Hon. T. Cantil-Sakauye

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B-Letter from E. Holder to Hon.J. Sessions

View on PACER

Sept. 1, 2017

Sept. 1, 2017

PACER
74

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus City of Calumet City by Robert R. Wilder (Wilder, Robert) (Entered: 09/07/2017)

Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

PACER
73

ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus City of Calumet City by Burton S. Odelson (Odelson, Burton) (Entered: 09/07/2017)

Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

PACER
75

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 9/11/2017.Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

Sept. 11, 2017

Sept. 11, 2017

PACER
76

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 9/11/17 before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber. Court Reporter Contact Information: Kathleen_Fennell@ilnd.uscourts.gov. IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings. Redaction Request due 10/3/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/13/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/11/2017. (Fennell, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/12/2017)

Sept. 12, 2017

Sept. 12, 2017

PACER
78

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 9/15/2017:Mailed notice(wp, ) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

Sept. 15, 2017

Sept. 15, 2017

RECAP
77

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber:The Court grants the City a preliminary injunction against the Attorney Generals imposition of the notice and access conditions on the Byrne JAG grant. The Court denies the Citys Motion for a Preliminary Injunction with respect to the compliance condition, because the City has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

Sept. 15, 2017

Sept. 15, 2017

RECAP
86

NOTICE OF EMAIL NOTIFICATION FAILURE, for document # 79, 80, 84, 81, 82, 85, 83 sent to Attorney George P. Apostolides returned as:. Mailed to attorney George P. Apostolides a letter re: bounce back email and a Notification of Change of Address form. Notices have been set to No. Counsel must email the Clerk's Office at Docketing_ILND@uscourts.gov when a Notification of Change of Address has been filed to ensure electronic notification is reset. (ek, ) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

PACER
85

TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 79 . Notified counsel. (gcy, ) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

RECAP
84

NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record regarding notice of appeal 79 (gcy, ) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

RECAP
83

NOTICE of Motion by Arjun Garg for presentment of motion to stay 80 before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 9/28/2017 at 09:30 AM. (Garg, Arjun) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

RECAP
82

DECLARATION of Alan R. Hanson regarding motion to stay 80 (Garg, Arjun) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

RECAP
81

MEMORANDUM by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III in support of motion to stay 80 (Garg, Arjun) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

RECAP
80

MOTION by Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to stay Nationwide Application of Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Garg, Arjun) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

RECAP
79

NOTICE of appeal by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III regarding orders 78 (Garg, Arjun) (Entered: 09/26/2017)

Sept. 26, 2017

Sept. 26, 2017

RECAP
87

ACKNOWLEDGMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice of appeal 79 ; USCA Case No. 17-2991. (aee, ) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

RECAP
89

MINUTE entryMotion hearing held on 9/28/2017. Plaintiff (and Amici, if any) shall file a response to Defendants motion to stay [ECF No. 80] on or before 10/6/2017. Defendant's unopposed oral motion for an extension to answer or otherwise plead is granted. Defendant shall answer or otherwise plead on or before 11/20/2017. Motion of substitution [ECF No. 88] is granted. The Applications of Michael Schwartz, Jamison Davies, Chad Golder, Molly Priedeman, Nicholas Dufau, Justin Benson, and Lindsay Walter to appear pro hac vice [ECF Nos. 38, 39, 46, 47, 48, 67, 68] are granted. Motion by California State Legislature for leave to file brief as amicus curiae [ECF No. 56] is granted nunc pro tunc. Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 10/03/2017)

Sept. 28, 2017

Sept. 28, 2017

PACER
88

WITHDRAWING Stephen J. Buckingham as counsel for Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and substituting Arjun Garg as counsel of record (Garg, Arjun) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

Sept. 29, 2017

Sept. 29, 2017

RECAP
94

MEMORANDUM by The City of Chicago in Opposition to motion to stay 80 Nationwide Application of Preliminary Injunction (Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

PACER
93

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs The United States Conference of Mayors, The United States Conference of Mayors by John Matthew Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald, John) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

PACER
92

NOTICE of Motion by Brian C Haussmann for presentment of motion to intervene 91 before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 10/11/2017 at 09:30 AM. (Haussmann, Brian) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

PACER
91

MOTION by Plaintiffs The United States Conferences of Mayors, The United States Conference of Mayors to intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Haussmann, Brian) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

RECAP
90

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff The United States Conferences of Mayors by Brian C Haussmann (Haussmann, Brian) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

PACER
96

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber:Motion hearing held on 10/11/2017. Briefing schedule set on the United States Conference of Mayors' Motion to Intervene 91 : Defendant's response brief to be filed by 10/27/2017. The Conference of Mayors' reply brief to be filed by 11/3/2017. Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

PACER
95

SUPPLEMENT to motion to stay 80 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Supreme Court Order)(Garg, Arjun) (Entered: 10/11/2017)

1 Exhibit A - Supreme Court Order

View on PACER

Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

PACER
103

DECLARATION of Ari Holtzblatt regarding motion for reconsideration 99 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Holtzblatt, Ari) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

1 Exhibit A

View on RECAP

Oct. 13, 2017

Oct. 13, 2017

PACER
102

Text of Proposed Order on Motion for Reconsideration by The City of Chicago 99 (Siskel, Edward) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

Oct. 13, 2017

Oct. 13, 2017

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Trump Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 7, 2017

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

City of Chicago

Plaintiff Type(s):

City/County Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Federalism (including 10th Amendment)

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 2018 - None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Funding

Immigration/Border:

Sanctuary city/state

Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation