Filed Date: Dec. 22, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges an Illinois statute that, according to the federal government, unlawfully regulated and discriminated against federal immigration enforcement by exposing federal officers to state civil liability and restricting where federal officers could 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 sought 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 challenged two provisions of the Act: the “Illinois Bivens Act,” which created a state-law cause of action against individuals engaged in “civil immigration enforcement,” and the Court Access, Safety, and Participation Act (“CASPA”), which restricted civil arrests at and around state courthouses.
According to the complaint, Congress had 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 conducted immigration enforcement activities within Illinois. The federal government alleged that Illinois’s attempt to distinguish “civil” immigration enforcement from criminal enforcement rested on a false dichotomy, because immigration enforcement frequently involved overlapping civil, administrative, and criminal components. By regulating these activities, the complaint contended, Illinois intruded on federal authority and disrupted the uniform enforcement of immigration law.
The federal government alleged that the Illinois Bivens Act unlawfully created 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 authorized compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and mandatory attorney’s fees, and included factors for assessing “reprehensibility” that the complaint claimed targeted 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 regulated and deterred federal officers’ conduct, exposed them to heightened litigation and personal risk, and discriminated against federal immigration enforcement in violation of the Supremacy Clause.
The complaint also challenged CASPA, which granted immunity from civil arrest to individuals attending state court proceedings and broadly prohibited civil arrests inside courthouses, on courthouse grounds, and within 1,000 feet of a courthouse. CASPA defined “court companions” expansively and authorized civil liability and statutory damages for violations. The federal government alleged that these restrictions directly interfered with federal immigration enforcement by eliminating courthouses as safe and predictable arrest locations, particularly in jurisdictions that limited cooperation with ICE, thereby increasing risks to officers and the public.
The United States brought two Supremacy Clause claims, asserting that the challenged provisions unlawfully regulated and discriminated against the federal government in violation of intergovernmental immunity principles. It sought 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 was assigned to District Judge David W. Dugan,
Following the filing of the complaint, defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on February 23, 2026.
On March 2, 2026, the court granted the City of Chicago’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Two days later, on March 4, 2026, the court granted a motion by legal and social service organizations for leave to file an amicus brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Shortly thereafter, on March 6, 2026, the court issued an order noting that defendants’ motion to dismiss was not yet ripe and clarifying that the case had been randomly assigned.
On March 17, 2026, the court granted the United States an extension to respond to the motion to dismiss and stayed discovery pending resolution of that motion.
The case remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jack Buckfire (4/22/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72067117/parties/united-states-v-state-of-illinois/
Dugan, David Wayne (Illinois)
Kinkead, Darren Bernens (Illinois)
Brunt, Alexa A. (Illinois)
Carsh, Austin (Illinois)
Gelbort, Hannah Elise (Illinois)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72067117/united-states-v-state-of-illinois/
Last updated April 27, 2026, 10:06 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
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
Plaintiff Type(s):
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
State of Illinois
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Illinois 3:25-cv-02220
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border:
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
Case Summary of United States v. State of Illinois, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47534/ (last updated 4/22/2026).