YES!! DOUBLE BARRELS: ILLINOIS FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST NOEM, BOVINO, DHS, CBP, et al
You already know that Minnesota filed their lawsuit against the administration yesterday. What you may not know (or hey, may) is that Illinois *also* filed a lawsuit yesterday, in fact a hard-hitting, 103-page complaint (included for Notes from the Front members).
I didn’t post about it yesterday because I had to dig around to find the actual complaint, *and* there is already some procedural maneuvering going on, which I’ll explain in a moment.
You may be thinking “Wait, didn’t Chicago already file a lawsuit in which Judge Ellis gave Trump, Noem, ICE, Bovino, and others a spectacular spanking?
Well, yes and no. That lawsuit was actually filed through the side door by journalists and others (the lead plaintiff is the Chicago Headline Club), *not* by the State of Illinois or the City of Chicago themselves.
Here’s the procedural maneuvering I mentioned: Illinois’ new lawsuit yesterday was assigned to Judge Georgia N. Alexakis. Illinois’ attorneys immediately filed a motion with Judge Alexakis’ requesting that the case be moved over to Judge Ellis and consolidated with the Chicago Headline case, because the cases are related. In fact the motion that they filed is called a “motion to consolidate related cases”. This makes sense because of course Judge Ellis is already intimately familiar with the issues and the parties. It’s also a good strategic move because Judge Ellis is not putting up with any of the administration’s nonsense.
Judge Alexakis pointed out that the motion actually needs to be filed with Judge Ellis, as the rule is that motions for relatedness “shall be filed in the lowest-numbered case of the claimed related set and noticed before the judge assigned to that case.”
So yesterday Illinois & Chicago filed that motion with Judge Ellis (also included for Notes from the Front members), and that hearing is set for Thursday afternoon.
As for Illinois’ / Chicago’s lawsuit itself, it is masterfully done, with a Table of Contents that lays out everything for all to see:
INTRODUCTION
I. President Trump’s Campaign of Coercion
II. The Unauthorized And Reckless Deployment of Border Patrol To Chicago With Catastrophic Results
A. Border Patrol Is Not Authorized Or Trained For Large-Scale Removal Enforcement In The Interior of the United States
B. Border Patrol’s Occupation of Chicago
III. Defendants Adopted and Implemented Unlawful Policies
A. Roving Patrol Policy
1. Roving Patrols and Indiscriminate Questioning
2. Defendants Implemented the Roving Patrol Policy in Illinois
3. The Roving Patrol Policy Has Injured Plaintiffs
B. Biometric Scanning Policy
1. Capture and Retention of Biometric Information
2. Defendants Implemented the Biometric Scanning Policy In Illinois
3. The Biometric Scanning Policy Has Injured Plaintiffs
C. Warrantless Arrests
1. Warrantless Arrests Without Probable Cause or Individualized Assessment of Flight Risk
2. Defendants Implemented the Warrantless Arrest Policy in Illinois
3. The Warrantless Arrest Policy Injured Plaintiffs
D. Deployment of Riot Control Weapons
1. Statutory and Administrative Limits On Defendants’ Use of Force
2. Defendants Implemented A Policy In Illinois To Deploy Tear Gas Without Warning Against Persons Who Are Not Resisting
3. The Tear Gas Policy Injured Plaintiffs
E. Arbitrary Enforcement Policy at Sensitive Locations
1. The Longstanding Sensitive Locations Policy
2. DHS Abrogated the Sensitive Locations Policy and Replaced it With a Policy of Arbitrary Enforcement
3. Defendants Have Implemented the Arbitrary Enforcement Policy in
Illinois
(i) Courthouses
(ii) Schools
(iii) Social Service Organizations
(iv) Medical Facilities
4. The Arbitrary Enforcement Policy Has Injured Plaintiffs
F. Concealing License Plates
1. Defendants Hide, Remove, and Swap License Plates in Violation of State and Federal Law
2. Defendants Have Implemented the Conceal Plates Policy in Illinois
3. The Conceal Plates Policy Injured Plaintiffs
G. Private Trespass
1. Trespass on Private Property
2. Trespass on City Property
IV. Border Patrol’s Incursion Has Not Concluded, and Its Unlawful and Violent Tactics Are Likely To Recur
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
This lawsuit is filed in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Minnesota’s lawsuit is filed in the District Court for the District of Minnesota; Illinois, having a population of more than twice that of Minnesota, has three Federal District Courts: Northern, Central, and Southern).
I’m keeping an eye on that motion to consolidate in Judge Ellis’ court and will keep you posted!
Notes from the Front members: The 103-page complaint and the 2-page motion for relatedness are in your inbox waiting for you :~)
To preserve original source documents before they can be tampered with (remember the 16 documents that mysteriously disappeared from the Epstein files?), and protect myself from claims of improper republication, and trolls, I don’t publicly share documents I find, I make them available privately to Notes from the Front members. Often these are non-public documents for which I have had to pay out of my own pocket in order to share them with you. Others of them may be public but I find the source originals for you and include explanations and insights based on my decades of law practice and as a law professor, with a side of snark. ;~)
You can join below for immediate access to this and other documents, the archives, our private chat, etc.. – it’s $5 a month which both keeps the trolls out, and helps to cover my expenses for our private dropbox, for purchasing transcripts and documents to share with you, etc..
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/yes-double-barrels-illinois-files
Source