Case: United States v. State of Illinois

3:25-cv-02220 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Dec. 22, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding in progress

Case Summary

This case challenges an Illinois statute that, according to the federal government, unlawfully regulates and discriminates against federal immigration enforcement by exposing federal officers to state civil liability and restricting where federal officers may conduct civil immigration arrests. On December 22, 2025, the United States filed this lawsuit against the State of Illinois, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul in the U.S. District Court for the Southe…

This case challenges an Illinois statute that, according to the federal government, unlawfully regulates and discriminates against federal immigration enforcement by exposing federal officers to state civil liability and restricting where federal officers may conduct civil immigration arrests.

On December 22, 2025, the United States filed this lawsuit against the State of Illinois, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating portions of Illinois Public Act 104-0440, an omnibus law signed by Governor Pritzker on December 9, 2025, and effective immediately upon enactment. The complaint challenges two provisions of the Act: the “Illinois Bivens Act,” which creates a state-law cause of action against individuals engaged in “civil immigration enforcement,” and the Court Access, Safety, and Participation Act (“CASPA”), which restricts civil arrests at and around state courthouses.

According to the complaint, Congress has vested exclusive authority over immigration enforcement in the federal government through the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and federal agencies—including DHS, ICE, and CBP—regularly conduct immigration enforcement activities within Illinois. The federal government alleges that Illinois’s attempt to distinguish “civil” immigration enforcement from criminal enforcement rests on a false dichotomy, because immigration enforcement frequently involves overlapping civil, administrative, and criminal components. By regulating these activities, the complaint contends, Illinois intrudes on federal authority and disrupts the uniform enforcement of immigration law.

The federal government alleges that the Illinois Bivens Act unlawfully creates a broad private right of action allowing individuals to sue federal officers for alleged violations of the Illinois Constitution or the U.S. Constitution committed during civil immigration enforcement. The statute authorizes compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and mandatory attorney’s fees, and includes factors for assessing “reprehensibility” that the complaint claims target standard federal law-enforcement practices, such as wearing facial coverings, failing to identify verbally, or operating vehicles with non-Illinois license plates. According to the complaint, these provisions regulate and deter federal officers’ conduct, expose them to heightened litigation and personal risk, and discriminate against federal immigration enforcement in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

The complaint also challenges CASPA, which grants immunity from civil arrest to individuals attending state court proceedings and broadly prohibits civil arrests inside courthouses, on courthouse grounds, and within 1,000 feet of a courthouse. CASPA defines “court companions” expansively and authorizes civil liability and statutory damages for violations. The federal government alleges that these restrictions directly interfere with federal immigration enforcement by eliminating courthouses as safe and predictable arrest locations, particularly in jurisdictions that limit cooperation with ICE, thereby increasing risks to officers and the public.

The United States brings two Supremacy Clause claims, alleging that the challenged provisions unlawfully regulate and discriminate against the federal government in violation of intergovernmental immunity principles. It seeks declaratory relief invalidating the Illinois Bivens Act and CASPA as applied to federal officers, a permanent injunction barring their enforcement, and an award of costs and fees.

The case remains ongoing in the pleadings stage.

Summary Authors

Jack Buckfire (2/10/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72067117/parties/united-states-v-state-of-illinois/


Judge(s)

Dugan, David Wayne (Illinois)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Wen, James (Illinois)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

3:25-cv-02220

Complaint

United States of America v. State of Illinois

Dec. 22, 2025

Dec. 22, 2025

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72067117/united-states-v-state-of-illinois/

Last updated April 15, 2026, 3:27 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against J B Pritzker, Kwame Raoul, State of Illinois, filed by United States. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons State of Illinois, # 3 Summons Pritzker, # 4 Summons Raoul)(Wen, James) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on RECAP

2 Summons State of Illinois

View on RECAP

3 Summons Pritzker

View on RECAP

4 Summons Raoul

View on RECAP

Dec. 22, 2025

Dec. 22, 2025

Clearinghouse
2

Notice of Judge Assignment. Judge J. Phil Gilbert assigned. All future documents must bear case number 25-cv-2220-JPG. Refer to Civil/Removal Case Processing Requirements, found on the ILSD website, for further service information. (jle) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

Dec. 23, 2025

Dec. 23, 2025

3

Summons Issued as to J B Pritzker, Kwame Raoul, State of Illinois. Originals mailed to counsel for service. (aca) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

Dec. 23, 2025

Dec. 23, 2025

4

Case reassigned to Judge David W. Dugan. Judge J. Phil Gilbert no longer assigned to the case. Case was assigned in error. All future pleadings shall bear case number 25-cv-2220-DWD. (jlrr) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

Dec. 23, 2025

Dec. 23, 2025

5

NOTICE of Appearance by Jacqueline Claire Lau on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Lau, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

Dec. 29, 2025

Dec. 29, 2025

6

WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by USA. J B Pritzker waiver sent on 12/23/2025, answer due 2/23/2026; Kwame Raoul waiver sent on 12/23/2025, answer due 2/23/2026; State of Illinois waiver sent on 12/23/2025, answer due 2/23/2026. (Lau, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

Dec. 29, 2025

Dec. 29, 2025

7

NOTICE of Appearance by Darren Bernens Kinkead on behalf of All Defendants (Kinkead, Darren) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb. 23, 2026

Feb. 23, 2026

8

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by All Defendants. (Kinkead, Darren) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb. 23, 2026

Feb. 23, 2026

RECAP
9

NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew Worseck on behalf of City of Chicago (Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb. 27, 2026

Feb. 27, 2026

10

NOTICE of Appearance by Hannah Elise Gelbort on behalf of City of Chicago (Gelbort, Hannah) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb. 27, 2026

Feb. 27, 2026

11

NOTICE of Appearance by Austin Carsh on behalf of City of Chicago (Carsh, Austin) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb. 27, 2026

Feb. 27, 2026

12

MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief (Unopposed) by City of Chicago. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - City of Chicago's Amicus Brief)(Carsh, Austin) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb. 27, 2026

Feb. 27, 2026

13

ORDER regarding the City of Chicago's Motion for Leave to File a Brief of Amicus Curiae. (Doc. 12). The City of Chicago seeks to brief matters that are not covered in depth in Defendants' brief. (Doc. 12, pg. 2). All parties consent to that request. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. The City of Chicago is DIRECTED to file its Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as an independent docket entry. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 3/2/2026. (jnh)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/02/2026)

March 2, 2026

March 2, 2026

14

MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae Legal And Social Service Providers in Support of State of Illinois Motion to Dismiss by Apna Ghar, Ascend Justice, Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDING LEGAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES TO LOW-INCOME ILLINOISANS)(Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

March 2, 2026

March 2, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

March 2, 2026

March 2, 2026

15

MEMORANDUM in Support Brief of City of Chicago as amicus curiae in support of Defendants' motion to dismiss filed by City of Chicago. (Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

March 3, 2026

March 3, 2026

16

NOTICE by Apna Ghar, Ascend Justice, Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation et al. ., REGARDING THE PARTIES POSITIONS ON THEIR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

March 3, 2026

March 3, 2026

17

ORDER regarding the Motion for Leave to File a Brief of Amici Curiae Legal and Social Service Providers in Support of the State of Illinois' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 14). Amici indicate they have experience that bears directly on the issues presented in this case. (Doc. 14, pgs. 1-2). Therefore, they seek to submit a brief "to provide the Court with historical and practical context regarding the privilege against civil courthouse arrests and its role in ensuring meaningful access to the judicial system." (Doc. 14, pgs. 2-3). That unique perspective could assist the Court beyond what is contained in the party's briefing. Based on these representations, the Motion is GRANTED. Amici are DIRECTED to file their Brief as an independent docket entry. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 3/4/2026. (jnh)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/04/2026)

March 4, 2026

March 4, 2026

18

MEMORANDUM in Support (Brief Amici Curiae of Organizations Providing Legal and Social Services to Low-Income Illinoisans in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss) filed by Apna Ghar, Ascend Justice, Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation et al.. (Van Brunt, Alexa) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

March 4, 2026

March 4, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to File

March 4, 2026

March 4, 2026

19

ORDER regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 8). That Motion to Dismiss is not yet ripe. Once it is, the merits will be addressed as soon as possible. However, at this time, the Court finds it is appropriate to allay a potential concern of Defendants. At footnote 1 in the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants state: "It appears that this action was assigned not by random draw, see ECF 4, but rather because the federal government indicated on the civil cover sheet, ECF 1-1, that it is related to United States v. Illinois, No. 3:25-cv-01691-DWD, a separate action in which the federal government challenges different Illinois laws (concerning higher education benefits) under a different legal theory (preemption). The two actions do not share any common questions o[f] law or fact; nor do they overlap in any other way that would seem to justify their being decided by the same judge. If the two United States v. Illinois actions are to be deemed 'related' simply because they involve the same parties, then this Court is likely to be saddled with many more of these cases over the next three years." (Doc. 8, pg. 9 n. 1) (internal citations omitted). While the Court appreciates Defendants' concern over the methodology by which judges in the Southern District of Illinois are assigned new cases by the Clerk of the Court, as well as the warning that this Court "is likely to be saddled with many more of these cases over the next three years," the Court now wishes to confirm for Defendants that the present matter was, in fact, randomly assigned to this undersigned district judge. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 3/6/2026. (jnh)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/06/2026)

March 6, 2026

March 6, 2026

Order

March 6, 2026

March 6, 2026

20

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Request for Deferral of the Scheduling and Discovery Order by All Plaintiffs. (Lau, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

March 17, 2026

March 17, 2026

RECAP
21

ORDER regarding Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Request for Deferral of the Scheduling and Discovery Order. (Doc. 20). For good cause shown, and without opposition from any party, the Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Response is due on April 24, 2026. Discovery is STAYED pending a resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 3/17/2026. (jnh)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/17/2026)

March 17, 2026

March 17, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings AND ~Util - Set/Clear Flags AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

March 17, 2026

March 17, 2026

Case Details

State / Territory:

Illinois

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations By the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 22, 2025

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The United States of America

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State

State of Illinois

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Supremacy Clause

Other Dockets:

Southern District of Illinois 3:25-cv-02220

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

Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):

Hispanic

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights

Enforcement location

ICE/DHS/INS raid

Sanctuary city/state

Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties

Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:

Commandeering

Recommended Citation