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 complete

Case Summary

This case is about a challenge to the Trump administration’s attempt to attach funding conditions to a law enforcement grant program.  On November 12, 2025, the cities of Chicago, Illinois and Saint Paul, Minnesota sued the Department of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) over funding conditions the DOJ attempted to attach to COPS grants. COPS grants are provided to states and local governments to improve cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the commun…

This case is about a challenge to the Trump administration’s attempt to attach funding conditions to a law enforcement grant program. 

On November 12, 2025, the cities of Chicago, Illinois and Saint Paul, Minnesota sued the Department of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) over funding conditions the DOJ attempted to attach to COPS grants. COPS grants are provided to states and local governments to improve cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. The grants may be used to hire and train law enforcement officers for community-oriented policing and to establish programs to assist law enforcement officers with mental health, behavioral, and substance abuse issues. In March 2025, Congress allocated $417 million to the COPS Office, and in 2024 Chicago received $6.25 million in COPS grants for their community policing efforts and Saint Paul received $350,000 in 2023 to pay for education and equipment requirements for aspiring police officers and to pay overtime for the officers who mentored these candidates. 

In October 2025, the DOJ approved COPS grants for both plaintiff cities, with Chicago’s going towards the salaries of 50 officers, and Saint Paul’s towards their “Downtown Homelessness Initiative.” The awards inserted three conditions that plaintiffs allege are unlawful. The first condition requires the cities comply with 8 U.S.C. §1373, which requires that state and local governments provide information regarding citizenship/immigration status to the Department of Homeland Security upon request (“Immigration Condition”). The second condition requires the cities to “certify that it does not operate any program (including any such programs having components relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion) that violates any applicable Federal civil rights or antidiscrimination laws” (“Discrimination Condition”). The third condition requires the cities to “comply with all applicable federal laws and Presidential Memoranda and all Executive Orders by the President” (“Executive Order Condition”). 

The cities argue these conditions are unlawful because: (1) they violate the doctrine of Separation of Powers because only Congress can attach conditions to federal funds, not the president/executive branch; (2) the conditions are not within the authority Congress delegated to the DOJ under the COPS statute; (3) the conditions are unconstitutional under the Spending Clause because they are retroactive conditions and because they are not reasonably related to the purpose of the COPS grants; (4) DOJ violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the conditions are unconstitutional and contrary to statutory law as mentioned above, and because the DOJ provided no reasoned explanation for its decision to impose the funding conditions. Further, the cities alleged that the Immigration Condition violates the 10th Amendment. Both cities have adopted laws that prevent city employees from participating in federal civil immigration enforcement operations, and they argue that the Immigration Condition unconstitutionally intrudes on their authority to enact locally-preferred laws, and turns city employees into arms of the federal government. For similar reasons, plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment that 8 U.S.C. §1373 is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. 

On November 17, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. 

This case was assigned to Judge Jorge L. Alonso and Magistrate Judge Keri L. Holleb. This case is ongoing.  

Summary Authors

Bryan Waugh (11/30/2025)

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)

Kane, Stephen J (Illinois)

McElveen, Kelsey J (Illinois)

Attorney for Defendant

Johnson, Patrick Walter (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 Dec. 8, 2025, 12:35 a.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
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

3

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff City of Chicago by Rebecca Alfert Hirsch (Hirsch, Rebecca) (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

2

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

Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

6

MOTION by Plaintiffs City of Chicago, City of Saint Paul for order Entering Agreed Schedule, Relieving the Action from Amended General Order 25-0024, and Granting Leave to File Excess Pages (Metcalf, Chelsey) (Entered: 11/13/2025)

Nov. 13, 2025

Nov. 13, 2025

RECAP
7

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff City of Chicago by Chelsey Blaire Metcalf (Metcalf, Chelsey) (Entered: 11/13/2025)

Nov. 13, 2025

Nov. 13, 2025

8

ORDER GENERAL ORDER 25-0028: RESETTING OF DEADLINES IN CIVIL MATTERS INVOLVING THE UNITED STATES AS A PARTY IT APPEARING THAT as a result of the partial federal government shutdown, this Court amended General Order 25-0024 suspending as of October 1, 2025, all civil litigation in which the United States of America, its agencies, its officers, or employees were parties, with the stated intention of clarifying schedules in such cases upon the expiration of the lapse in appropriations; and IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT appropriations having been restored to fund the Department of Justice and other Executive Branch agencies, with employees beginning to report for work beginning on November 13, 2025; accordingly IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stay entered by General Order 25-0024 is hereby lifted, and any and all deadlines in affected civil cases (whether established by order, rule, or agreement.), including but not limited to any scheduled discovery and pleading dates, are extended by 49 days. 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. Any litigant affected by this General Order may seek relief from the order by motion. Trial dates in the affected cases will stand, although they may need to be adjusted in individual cases to account for the extension of other dates. The Court may, in any particular case, vary the effect or operation of this General Order by a separate ruling. 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. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 11/14/2025: Mailed notice. (tg, ) (Entered: 11/14/2025)

Nov. 14, 2025

Nov. 14, 2025

9

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Counsel McElveen's motion 4 for leave to appear pro hac vice is granted. Plaintiff's unopposed motion 6 is granted as follows. Plaintiffs will file their motion for a preliminary injunction of up to 25 pages by 11/17/25. Defendants shall file an opposition motion of up to 25 pages by 12/5/25. Plaintiffs shall reply by 12/12/25. The deadline for Plaintiffs to accept any grant award or grant funding related to this Action is extended to: 12/22/25. In-person oral argument is set for Wednesday, 12/17/25 at 9:30 a.m. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, ) (Entered: 11/17/2025)

Nov. 17, 2025

Nov. 17, 2025

10

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff City of Chicago by Stephen J Kane (Kane, Stephen) (Entered: 11/17/2025)

Nov. 17, 2025

Nov. 17, 2025

11

MOTION by Plaintiff City of Chicago for preliminary injunction (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/17/2025)

Nov. 17, 2025

Nov. 17, 2025

12

MEMORANDUM by City of Chicago in support of motion for preliminary injunction 11 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Stephen Kane, # 2 Declaration Tomas Maulawin, # 3 Declaration Lindsay Bacher)(Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/17/2025)

Nov. 17, 2025

Nov. 17, 2025

13

DESIGNATION of Patrick Walter Johnson as U.S. Attorney for Defendants Pamela Bondi, Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Cory Randolph (Johnson, Patrick) (Entered: 11/18/2025)

Nov. 18, 2025

Nov. 18, 2025

14

MOTION by Defendant Department of Justice to amend/correct scheduling order regarding preliminary injunction motion (Johnson, Patrick) (Entered: 11/24/2025)

Nov. 24, 2025

Nov. 24, 2025

15

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Defendant's unopposed motion 14 to modify the scheduling order is granted in part. Defendants' response to the motion for preliminary injunction is due 12/10/25. Plaintiffs' reply is due 12/17/25. The Court schedules oral argument for 1/9/26 at 10:00 a.m. and anticipates issuing a decision by 1/15/26. This would require Defendants to extend the funding deadline applicable to this action to 1/16/26. By 12/1/25, the parties shall submit a joint status report confirming that they are available on 1/9/26 for oral argument and that they are amenable to a funding deadline of 1/16/26. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, ) (Entered: 11/26/2025)

Nov. 26, 2025

Nov. 26, 2025

16

STATUS Report (joint) by Department of Justice (Johnson, Patrick) (Entered: 12/01/2025)

Dec. 1, 2025

Dec. 1, 2025

RECAP

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

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Cities of Saint Paul, Minnesota and Chicago, Illinois

Plaintiff Type(s):

City/County Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Department of Justice (- United States (national) -), Federal

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (- United States (national) -), Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

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

Constitutional Clause(s):

Federalism (including 10th Amendment)

Separation of Powers

Spending/Appropriations Clauses

Other Dockets:

Northern District of Illinois 1:25-cv-13863

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Declaratory judgment

Injunction

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Funding

Immigration/Border:

Sanctuary city/state

Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:

Commandeering

Impoundment (mandatory spending)