Case: City of Chicago v. Department of Justice

1:25-cv-13863 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Nov. 12, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding in progress

Case Summary

(This summary is temporary, while we research the case.) On November 12, 2025, the City of Chicago and City of Saint Paul sued the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), and its Acting Director, alleging that DOJ unlawfully attached four new, sweeping, and politically motivated conditions to their FY2025 COPS grants. These grants funded essential community policing programs including hiring officers, sup…

(This summary is temporary, while we research the case.)

On November 12, 2025, the City of Chicago and City of Saint Paul sued the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), and its Acting Director, alleging that DOJ unlawfully attached four new, sweeping, and politically motivated conditions to their FY2025 COPS grants. These grants funded essential community policing programs including hiring officers, supporting homelessness initiatives, and promoting public safety. The new conditions force localities to "either accept conditions that are unconstitutional and contrary to law, or lose federal grant funding used to keep their residents safe." Filing in the Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that the challenged conditions are unlawful, as well as injunctive relief barring Defendants from applying or enforcing the Challenged Conditions or any materially similar conditions in connection with Plaintiffs’ grants.

This case is ongoing.

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71901645/parties/city-of-chicago-v-department-of-justice/


Judge(s)

Alonso, Jorge Luis (Illinois)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Hirsch, Rebecca Alfert (Illinois)

McElveen, Kelsey J (Illinois)

Metcalf, Chelsey Blaire (Illinois)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

1:25-cv-13863

Complaint

Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71901645/city-of-chicago-v-department-of-justice/

Last updated Nov. 13, 2025, 12:38 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
5

ORDER AMENDED GENERAL ORDER 25-0024: GENERAL ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE: CIVIL MATTERS INVOLVING THE UNITED STATES AS A PARTY: This matter is before the Court due to the lapse of congressional appropriations funding the federal government, including the Department of Justice and the United States Attorney's Office. Absent an appropriation, the United States represents that certain Department of Justice attorneys and employees of the federal government are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property." 31 U.S.C. § 1342. Therefore, the lapse in appropriations requires a reduction in the workforce of the United States Attorney's Office and other federal agencies, particularly with respect to prosecution and defense of civil cases. The Court, in response, and with the intent to avoid any default or prejudice to the United States or other civil litigants occasioned by the lapse in funding, sua sponte enters this General Order. As a result of the cited workforce reductions, it is hereby ORDERED, effective October 1, 2025, that all civil litigation involving as a party the United States of America, its agencies, its officers or employees (whether in their individual or official capacity and whether current or former employees), and/or any other party represented by the Department of Justice or the United States Attorney's Office is immediately suspended, postponed, and held in abeyance continuing until funding for federal government operations is fully restored. The Court may renew or modify this General Order depending on developments in the stay period. The Court intends "civil litigation" to include all pending non-criminal cases in which the United States, its agencies, its officers or employees (whether in their individual or official capacity and whether current or former employees) is in any way a named party and any non-criminal cases in which the United States Attorney's Office or the Department of Justice is counsel of record. This includes, without limitation, all pending Social Security cases and all cases seeking monetary or equitable relief in which the United States is involved as a civil litigant. The General Order does not affect habeas corpus cases pending or filed under Chapter 153 of Title 28. This General Order suspends and continues, during the stay, any and all events and deadlines in the affected civil litigation (whether established by order, rule, or agreement), including but not limited to any scheduled proceedings, hearings, and/or discovery and pleading dates. No party will be required to take any steps in civil litigation affected until expiration of the stay. The Court warns litigants that this General Order does not purport to affect rights to, or deadlines concerning, appeal from any decision of this Court, which will continue to operate and issue orders in the normal course. Any litigant affected by this General Order may seek relief from the order by motion. The Court may, in any particular case, vary the effect or operation of this General Order by a separate order. The Court shall distribute this General Order: (a) by electronic service to all registered CM/ECF users; (b) by first-class mail to unregistered civil litigants, including pro se litigants, and to attorneys pending pro hac vice admission; and (c) by posting the General Order on the Court's public website. This General Order does not operate as a stay of any injunction or restraining order entered by any judge of this court. The Court shall clarify the status of case schedules upon expiration of the stay and dependent on the timing of the funding resolution. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 10/2/2025. Mailed notice (td, ) (Entered: 11/12/2025)

Oct. 2, 2025

Oct. 2, 2025

1

COMPLAINT filed by City of Chicago; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24334685.(Metcalf, Chelsey) (Entered: 11/12/2025)

Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

Clearinghouse
2

CIVIL Cover Sheet (Metcalf, Chelsey) (Entered: 11/12/2025)

Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

3

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff City of Chicago by Rebecca Alfert Hirsch (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/12/2025)

Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

4

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of City of Saint Paul by Kelsey J McElveen; Filing fee $ 150, receipt number AILNDC-24336149. (McElveen, Kelsey) (Entered: 11/12/2025)

Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

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. (lj, )

Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (lj, )

Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

Case Details

State / Territory:

Illinois

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 12, 2025

Case Ongoing: Yes

Case Details

Other Dockets:

Northern District of Illinois 1:25-cv-13863

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Declaratory judgment

Injunction