Filed Date: Jan. 21, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged an Illinois law (Senate Bill 2930) that went into effect on January 1, 2025, requiring certain nonprofits to publicly report aggregated demographic information about their officers and directors—including race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, veteran status, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
On January 21, 2025, the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER)—a legal nonprofit founded by Edward Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)—filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Illinois’ Attorney General, Department of Human Rights, and Secretary of State. Represented by the law firm Consovoy McCarthy, the plaintiffs argued that Illinois Senate Bill 2930 (SB 2930) violated the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment by “pressur[ing] them to discriminate when choosing board members” and violated the First Amendment by compelling and regulating non-commercial speech. AAER alleged that two of its members—unnamed in the complaint—were regulated by SB 2930 and authorized AAER to represent them. For relief, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that SB 2930 is unconstitutional; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; and costs and attorneys’ fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman and Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain on the same day.
On March 4, 2025, the United States, represented by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), moved to intervene as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, arguing that SB 2930 encourages nonprofits to discriminate based on race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. An acting U.S. Associate Attorney General stated, “[t]his intervention seeks to eliminate discrimination via DEI and ensure the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection is enforced” (as reported here). The defendants did not oppose the motion to intervene, and the court granted it on March 11. A couple of days later on March 13, the US filed its intervenor complaint, alleging that SB 2930 violated the Equal Protection Clause. In its complaint, the US added the State of Illinois and its governor, JB Pritzker, as defendants. The US alleged that, in enacting SB 2930: “Illinois became the first state in the nation to require nonprofits to maintain ‘aggregated demographic information of the corporation’s directors and officers, including race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, veteran status, sexual orientation, and gender identity’ on their ‘publicly available website for at least 3 years after it is posted.’ See 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 105/114.15(a).”
On April 1, 2025, AAER filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (PI) and, on April 8, the US filed its own motion for a preliminary injunction (PI). Both sought to enjoin the state of Illinois from implementing or enforcing SB 2930, and therefore from requiring public disclosure of information about the demographics of nonprofits staff.
On April 15, 2025, the state-defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The argued that AAER lacked standing to assert its claims on behalf of two anonymous “corporate members that wish to solicit donations in Illinois and benefit from its taxation structure for charities without complying with its reporting requirements; had not shown a cognizable injury on either the First Amendment or the Equal Protection claim; and failed to state an Equal Protection claim under Rule 12(b)(6) “because SB 2930 does not require differential treatment based on race.”
On April 22, AAER filed an amended complaint to which the court ordered the defendants to respond by May 6. The Amended Complaint provided expanded factual allegations regarding the specific missions of Members A and B, including Member B’s objection to “gender identity”; additional detail on the mechanisms of enforcement of SB 2390 by the Secretary of State; and an extensive justification for why Members A and B proceed under pseudonymous, citing fears of retaliation, unwillingness of other organizations to partner with them, and a decrease in donations if their participation becomes public.
On May 6, 2025, the state of Illinois filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The motion was substantially the same as the one filed on April 15, but introduced a new section that explicitly identifies and rebuts the Plaintiff’s “four significant changes,” including new allegations regarding the Secretary of State’s interrogatory power, the subjective feeling of pressure to comply, claimed economic injury, and the expanded justification for corporate anonymity.
Plaintiff-intervenors filed an amended complaint also on May 6, 2025, adding factual allegations on legislative intent, third-party pressures, and discriminatory impact. It strengthened the equal protection claim by detailing concrete harms and asserting that SB 2930 failed strict scrutiny. It also sought both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. On May 20, Illinois filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff-intervenors' amended complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
After briefing and oral argument, on August 20, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part Illinois’ motion to dismiss American Alliance’s Amended Complaint; granted Illinois’ motion to dismiss the United States’s intervening complaint; and denied plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction. 2025 WL 2416907.
Beginning with the motions filed by the United States, the court first addressed standing. Because the United States failed to allege any cognizable injury-in-fact, the court found they had not met their Article III standing burden, and granted Illinois’ motion to dismiss the United States’ Amended Complaint in Intervention. As such, the United States’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied as moot. Next, the court addressed AAER’s complaint and preliminary injunction. The court found that the unnamed members of AAER lacked standing as it relates to its purported injuries stemming from public disclosure, but did recognize an imminent injury-in-fact in the State “asking their officers and directors ‘intrusive questions’ about sensitive demographic issues that Members A and B would rather not discuss.” Because AAER’s motion for preliminary injunction hinged on its likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claim, which the court previously held they lacked standing to assert, the court denied the motion.
On August 21, 2025, AAER appealed the court’s order denying preliminary injunction to the Seventh Circuit. The United States also appealed on August 25. Soon after, on August 27, the parties filed a joint stipulation with the district court to “stay enforcement of SB 2930, against Members A and B until Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction has been finally resolved.” It was accepted by the court the next day, in effect staying enforcement of SB 2930 against Members A and B and staying all district court proceedings under the Seventh Circuit rules on appeal. In any event, because Illinois has yet to release the requisite demographic classifications to be used by corporations required to file reports under SB 2930, no qualifying nonprofit can yet comply with the statute.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Sylvia Al-Mateen (4/24/2025)
Emma Vayda (6/18/2025)
Madena Mustafa (10/12/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71577499/parties/united-states-v-state-of-illinois/
Anderson, R. Gabriel (Illinois)
Attorney, Cameron Thomas
Attorney, Louis Whitsett,
Attorney, David N.
Berlin, Holly Frances (Illinois)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71577499/united-states-v-state-of-illinois/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:34 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 21, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The legal nonprofit American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) and, as an intervenor-plaintiff, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Governor of the State of Illinois (JB Pritzker)
Illinois Attorney General
Illinois Department of Human Rights
Illinois Secretary of State
State of Illinois
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Illinois 1:25-cv-00669
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 25-02487
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Case Summary of American Alliance For Equal Rights v. Bennett, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46277/ (last updated 10/12/2025).