Case: Flinn v. City of Evanston

1:24-cv-04269 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: May 23, 2024

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a lawsuit challenging an Evanston, Illinois program that offers reparations to Black Americans for past housing discrimination.  On May 23, 2024, six individuals filed this putative class action lawsuit against the City of Evanston in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They challenged the city's Restorative Housing Program, an initiative to compensate Black residents for housing discrimination they or their ancestors faced between 1919 and 1969 via $25,000 pa…

This is a lawsuit challenging an Evanston, Illinois program that offers reparations to Black Americans for past housing discrimination. 

On May 23, 2024, six individuals filed this putative class action lawsuit against the City of Evanston in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They challenged the city's Restorative Housing Program, an initiative to compensate Black residents for housing discrimination they or their ancestors faced between 1919 and 1969 via $25,000 payments to eligible applicants. Plaintiffs were all direct descendants of people who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969, and neither they nor their ancestors identified as Black. They claimed that the race-based eligibility requirement for compensation under the Restorative Housing Program violated the Equal Protection Clause by excluding non-Black people. Plaintiffs, represented by Judicial Watch and private counsel, sought to represent a class of all individuals who were able and ready to apply for the Program but for the race-based eligibility requirement. They requested declaratory relief, an injunction prohibiting the use of race as an eligibility requirement, award payments under the Program, and fees and costs. The case was assigned to District Judge John F. Kness. 

The City moved to dismiss the lawsuit on July 22, 2024. It argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Program because they did not apply to participate, and the application period closed in 2021. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not allege that they had property in Evanston. Therefore, they were ineligible to participate in the program and had not suffered the "concrete and particularized injury" necessary to support standing. The City sought jurisdictional discovery to confirm that the plaintiffs were not eligible to participate in the program. It also argued that the complaint was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations because it had not been filed until more than two and a half years after the Program's application period ended.

On March 27, 2026, the court denied both the City’s motion to dismiss and its request for jurisdictional discovery. The court held that the plaintiffs’ allegations of exclusion by race-based criteria were sufficient to establish they had standing at the pleadings stage. The court rejected the City’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they were not “able and ready” to participate in the program, because even if there were a dispute over the application period, any application would have been futile due to the alleged limitation of race-based eligibility. The parties also disputed the application period: the City stated it closed in November 2021, while the plaintiffs maintained the applications remained open and were considered on a rolling basis. Because of this factual dispute, the court held it would not be proper to rule on the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) at the pleadings stage. As for jurisdictional discovery, the court determined the pertinent disputes would be best resolved through ordinary merits discovery.

The City moved to bifurcate discovery on June 5, 2026. The City specifically sought to complete the factual record and summary judgment briefing on its statute of limitations defense before proceeding further. Then, if merits discovery proved necessary,  the parties would proceed on the plaintiffs’ claims. The City argued that this would preserve party and judicial resources. 

On June 16, 2026, the United States moved to intervene as a plaintiff. The U.S. argued that Section 902 of the Civil Rights Act grants the U.S. the right to intervene in cases seeking relief from an alleged denial of equal protection based on race if the acting Attorney General has certified the case as being one of general public importance. The U.S. also cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1), which grants an unconditional right to intervene when a federal statute so provides. In its proposed complaint, the U.S. alleged that the City violated the Equal Protection Clause by excluding individuals from the Program based on of race, and violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by discriminating on the basis of race or color in the terms and conditions of residential real estate transactions. The U.S. sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction barring the City from continuing to administer the program based on race, and damages.

On June 17, 2026, the plaintiffs moved to stay briefing on the City’s motion to bifurcate discovery until the intervention issue was resolved. The court denied this motion the following month on July 7, 2026, finding that possible intervention by the U.S. did not warrant a stay as it would not significantly impact the discovery schedule. 

As of July 29, 2026, this case remains ongoing. 

Summary Authors

Kara Wilczynski (7/30/2026)

Tessa Bialek (10/31/2024)

Amanda Feldman (9/27/2025)

Charlotte Beaudoin (2/12/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68559571/parties/flinn-v-city-of-evanston/


Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

1:24-cv-04269

Class Action Complaint

May 23, 2024

May 23, 2024

Complaint
13

1:24-cv-04269

Defendants Motion to Dismiss

July 22, 2024

July 22, 2024

Pleading / Motion / Brief
37

1:24-cv-04269

Order

March 27, 2026

March 27, 2026

Order/Opinion
48-2

1:24-cv-04269

Complaint in Intervention of the United States of America

Flinn et al. v. City of Evanston

June 16, 2026

June 16, 2026

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68559571/flinn-v-city-of-evanston/

Last updated Aug. 24, 2026, 4:14 a.m.

Docket for: Flinn v. City of Evanston
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 May 23, 2024

COMPLAINT filed by Stephen Weiland, Barbara Regard, Margot Flinn, Stasys Neimanas, Carol Johnson, Henry Regard; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22006789. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Svenson, Alice) (Entered: 05/23/2024)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
2 May 23, 2024

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland by Alice Christine Svenson (Svenson, Alice) (Entered: 05/23/2024)

RECAP
3 May 23, 2024

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland by Michael Bekesha (Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 05/23/2024)

RECAP
May 23, 2024

case assigned

May 23, 2024

clerk's notice

May 23, 2024

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category Two). (lw, )

May 23, 2024

CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (lw, )

May 28, 2024

summons issued

May 28, 2024

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant City of Evanston (lm, )

4 June 5, 2024

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Stephen Weiland, Barbara Regard, Margot Flinn, Stasys Neimanas, Carol Johnson, Henry Regard as to City of Evanston on 5/31/2024, answer due 6/21/2024. (Svenson, Alice) (Entered: 06/05/2024)

RECAP
5 June 12, 2024

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Evanston by Michael Timothy Brody (Brody, Michael) (Entered: 06/12/2024)

RECAP
6 June 12, 2024

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Evanston by Precious S. Jacobs-Perry (Jacobs-Perry, Precious) (Entered: 06/12/2024)

RECAP
7 June 12, 2024

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Evanston by Jeffrey P. Salvadore (Salvadore, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/12/2024)

RECAP
8 June 12, 2024

MOTION by Defendant City of Evanston for extension of time to file answer to Complaint (Unopposed) (Jacobs-Perry, Precious) (Entered: 06/12/2024)

RECAP
9 June 14, 2024

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Defendant's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint 8 is granted. Defendant must answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiff's complaint on or before 7/22/2024. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 06/14/2024)

RECAP
10 June 20, 2024

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Evanston by Alexandra Brien MacKey Ruggie (Ruggie, Alexandra) (Entered: 06/20/2024)

RECAP
11 June 28, 2024

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Evanston by Matthew Slodowy (Slodowy, Matthew) (Entered: 06/28/2024)

RECAP
12 July 22, 2024

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland by Paul J Orfanedes (Orfanedes, Paul) (Entered: 07/22/2024)

RECAP
13 July 22, 2024

MOTION by Defendant City of Evanston to dismiss / Defendant City of Evanston's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) and For Leave to Take Jurisdictional Discovery (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Affidavit of Audrey Thompson, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Jurisdictional Interrogatories)(Brody, Michael) (Entered: 07/22/2024)

1 Exhibit 1 - Affidavit of Audrey Thompson

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Jurisdictional Interrogatories

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
14 July 29, 2024

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Leave to Take Jurisdictional Discovery 13 : Plaintiff's response is due on or before 8/19/2024 and Defendant's reply, if any, is due on or before 9/3/2024. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 07/29/2024)

RECAP
15 Aug. 5, 2024

MOTION by Plaintiffs Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to dismiss, 13 (unopposed) (Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 08/05/2024)

RECAP
16 Aug. 19, 2024

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiffs' motion 15 for an extension of time to respond to Defendant City of Evanston's motion to dismiss 13 is granted. Plaintiffs' response must be filed on or before 9/18/2024. Any reply by Defendant City of Evanston must be filed on or before 10/2/2024. Mailed notice (jfk) (Entered: 08/19/2024)

RECAP
17 Aug. 20, 2024

REQUEST for Clerk of Court to refund filing fee in the amount of 405.00, receipt no. AILNDC-22006728, regarding complaint 1 (Svenson, Alice) (Entered: 08/20/2024)

RECAP
18 Aug. 21, 2024

REFUND PROCESSED re REQUEST for Clerk of Court to refund filing fee in the amount of $405.00, receipt no. AILNDC-22006728. (lw, ) (Entered: 09/09/2024)

RECAP
19 Sept. 17, 2024

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Evanston by Cynthia Sara Grandfield (Grandfield, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/17/2024)

RECAP
20 Sept. 18, 2024

MEMORANDUM by Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland in Opposition to motion to dismiss, 13 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Michael Bekesha with Exhibits)(Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2024)

1 Affidavit of Michael Bekesha with Exhibits

View on PACER

RECAP
21 Sept. 18, 2024

AFFIDAVIT of Michael Bekesha regarding memorandum in opposition to motion 20 (with Exhibits) (Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2024)

RECAP
22 Oct. 2, 2024

REPLY by Defendant City of Evanston in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Brody, Michael) (Entered: 10/02/2024)

RECAP
23 Dec. 27, 2024

ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/27/2024: Mailed notice. (tg, ) (Entered: 12/31/2024)

RECAP
24 Jan. 24, 2025

MOTION by Defendant City of Evanston for leave to file Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of its Motion to Dismiss and for Leave to Take Jurisdictional Discovery (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Brody, Michael) (Entered: 01/24/2025)

RECAP
25 Jan. 27, 2025

RESPONSE by Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weilandin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant City of Evanston for leave to file Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of its Motion to Dismiss and for Leave to Take Jurisdictional Discovery 24 (Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 01/27/2025)

RECAP
26 Feb. 8, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Defendant's motion 24 for leave to file a notice of supplemental authority is granted. The Court has read Plaintiffs' response in opposition and notes the challenges detailed by Plaintiffs' counsel in conferring with Defendant's counsel on whether the motion for leave would be opposed. Partly in view of that narrative, Plaintiffs are given leave to file a response to the notice of supplemental authority, not to exceed five pages, on or before 2/24/2025. No further briefing on the supplemental authority will be permitted. By separate order, the Court will set a date for in-person oral argument on the pending motion 13 to dismiss. Mailed notice (jfk) (Entered: 02/08/2025)

RECAP
27 Feb. 11, 2025

SUPPLEMENT to /Defendant City of Evanston's Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of its Motion to Dismiss and for Leave to Take Jurisdictional Discovery (Brody, Michael) (Entered: 02/11/2025)

RECAP
28 Feb. 24, 2025

RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland to supplement 27 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 02/24/2025)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

RECAP
29 April 11, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: The Courts sets an in-person hearing for oral argument on the pending motion to dismiss for 5/7/2025 at 11:30 A.M. in Courtroom 2125. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 04/11/2025)

RECAP
30 May 7, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: In-person motion hearing held on Defendant's motion to dismiss 13 . Oral argument heard. The motion is taken under advisement. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 05/08/2025)

RECAP
31 Aug. 22, 2025

MOTION by Attorney Matthew Slodowy to withdraw as attorney for City of Evanston. No party information provided (Slodowy, Matthew) (Entered: 08/22/2025)

RECAP
32 Aug. 27, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Motion by counsel to withdraw as attorney 31 is granted. Attorney Matthew Slodowy is withdrawn as counsel of record. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 08/27/2025)

RECAP
33 Sept. 22, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: The Court sets an in-person hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss 13 for 9/29/2025 at 10:30 A.M. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 09/22/2025)

RECAP
34 Sept. 22, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: By request and agreement of the parties, the in-person status hearing set for 9/29/2025 is stricken and reset for 9/26/2025 at 11:00 A.M. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 09/22/2025)

RECAP
35 Sept. 25, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: With regret for the late notice, the hearing set for tomorrow (9/26/2025) is stricken. Further guidance will be provided by separate order. Mailed notice (jfk) (Entered: 09/25/2025)

RECAP
36 Dec. 31, 2025

ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/31/2025: Mailed notice. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

RECAP
37 March 27, 2026

ORDER: Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as Defendant's request for jurisdictional discovery. (Dkt. 13 13.) For the reasons provided in the accompanying Statement, both requests are denied. A status hearing will be set by separate order. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 3/27/2026. Mailed notice. (evw, ) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

Clearinghouse
38 April 20, 2026

MOTION by Defendant City of Evanston for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint 1 (Unopposed) (Jacobs-Perry, Precious) (Entered: 04/20/2026)

RECAP
39 April 21, 2026

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to answer 38 is granted. Defendant's answer to Plaintiff's complaint must be filed on or before 5/8/2026. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

RECAP
40 May 8, 2026

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Evanston by Wade A Thomson (Thomson, Wade) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

RECAP
41 May 8, 2026

WITHDRAWING Michael T. Brody as counsel for Defendant City of Evanston and substituting Wade A Thomson as counsel of record (Thomson, Wade) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

RECAP
42 May 8, 2026

ANSWER to Complaint / Defendant City of Evanston's Answer and Defenses to the Complaint by City of Evanston(Jacobs-Perry, Precious) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

RECAP
43 June 5, 2026

NOTICE by Alice Christine Svenson of Change of Address and Firm Name (Svenson, Alice) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

RECAP
44 June 5, 2026

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland (Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

RECAP
45 June 5, 2026

MOTION by Defendant City of Evanston to bifurcate Discovery (Thomson, Wade) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

RECAP
46 June 5, 2026

STATEMENT by City of Evanston Regarding its Motion to Bifurcate Discovery, re: ECF 45 (Thomson, Wade) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

RECAP
47 June 10, 2026

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: The Court adopts the parties' proposed briefing schedule on Defendant's motion to bifurcate discovery 45 : Plaintiffs' response shall be filed on or before 7/10/2026. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed on or before 7/24/2026. An in-person motion hearing is set for 8/6/2026 at 10:00 A.M. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

RECAP
48 June 16, 2026

MOTION by Intervenor Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Acting AG Certificate, # 2 Exhibit 2-Complaint in Intervention)(Moran, Timothy) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

1 Exhibit 1-Acting AG Certificate

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2-Complaint in Intervention

View on Clearinghouse

RECAP
49 June 16, 2026

MEMORANDUM by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in support of motion to intervene 48 (Moran, Timothy) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

RECAP
50 June 16, 2026

ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by Timothy Moran (Moran, Timothy) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

RECAP
51 June 16, 2026

Statement Regarding Proposed Briefing Schedule for US Motion to Intervene STATEMENT by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Moran, Timothy) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

RECAP
52 June 16, 2026

ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by Gregory Dolin (Dolin, Gregory) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

RECAP
53 June 17, 2026

MOTION by Plaintiffs Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland to stay regarding set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings,, set/reset hearings, 47 (Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

RECAP
54 June 17, 2026

STATEMENT by Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland Regarding Proposed Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay (Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

RECAP
55 June 23, 2026

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: The Court adopts the parties' proposed briefing schedule on the United States of America's motion to intervene 48 : Defendant's response shall be filed on or before 7/20/2026. Intervenor's reply, if any, shall be filed on or before 8/3/2026. The Court adopts the parties' proposed briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion to stay briefing on Defendant's motion to bifurcate discovery 53 : Defendant's response shall be filed on or before 6/24/2026. Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed on or before 7/1/2026. Mailed notice. (lxk, ) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

RECAP
56 June 24, 2026

RESPONSE by City of Evanstonin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland to stay regarding set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings,, set/reset hearings, 47 53 (Thomson, Wade) (Entered: 06/24/2026)

RECAP
57 June 29, 2026

REPLY by Plaintiffs Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Briefing (Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

RECAP
58 July 7, 2026

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiffs' motion 53 to stay briefing on Defendant's motion to bifurcate discovery until the intervention issue is resolved is denied. To be sure, intervention by the United States might have some effect on the discovery schedule in this case, but that possibility does not warrant staying briefing on Defendant's motion to bifurcate. Any effect of a favorable intervention ruling, including whether supplemental briefing or modification of any discovery schedule is appropriate, can be addressed if and when the United States becomes a party to the case. On the Court's initiative, the due date for Plaintiffs' response to Defendant's motion is extended to July 17, 2026. Defendant's reply, if any, must be filed on or before July 31, 2026. The August 6, 2026 hearing is reset to 8/25/2026 at 10:00 A.M. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

RECAP
59 July 17, 2026

MEMORANDUM by Margot Flinn, Carol Johnson, Stasys Neimanas, Barbara Regard, Henry Regard, Stephen Weiland in Opposition to motion to bifurcate 45 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

RECAP
60 July 20, 2026

RESPONSE by City of Evanstonin Opposition to MOTION by Intervenor Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to intervene 48 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Thomson, Wade) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

RECAP
61 July 31, 2026

reply

RECAP
62 Aug. 3, 2026

reply to response to motion

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

Illinois

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Reparations

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations By the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 23, 2024

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Six non-Black descendants of residents of the City of Evanston, Illinois between 1919-1969, seeking to represent a class of all individuals who were able and ready to apply for the City's reparations program but for its race-based eligibility requirement.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

City

City of Evanston

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Other Dockets:

Northern District of Illinois 1:24-cv-04269

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Damages

Declaratory judgment

Injunction

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Reparations

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Affected Race(s):

White

Recommended Citation