City of Chicago v. Department of Justice

N.D. Ill. · 1:25-cv-13863 · 2025 · CourtListener

District7th Cir.

Docket

No. 1:25-cv-13863

Assigned to: Jorge L. Alonso
Cause: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
Nature of suit: 899 Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury demand: None
Date filed: 2025-11-12
Last filing: 2026-10-30

Proceedings

N.D. Ill. · No. 1:25-cv-13863 · Docket on CourtListener

75 docket entries · 28 documents

Recent docket activity

From the case's dockets as the archive holds them; each docket page lists every entry.

Show 1 more

2026-09-08 REPLY by Defendants Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to motion for summary judgment 54 (Defendants' Consolidated Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment) (Hartzler, Alex) (Entered: 09/08/2026)#68

Filings on file (28 in 24 docket entries)

Filings on file
Date	No.	Document	Type	Pages	Source
2025-11-12	1	COMPLAINT filed by City of Chicago; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24334685.(Metcalf, Chelsey) (Entered: 11/12/2025)	complaint	50	PDF CL
2025-11-12	3	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff City of Chicago by Rebecca Alfert Hirsch (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/12/2025)	attorney appearance	1	PDF CL
2025-11-13	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)	motion for order	4	PDF CL
2025-11-17	11	MOTION by Plaintiff City of Chicago for preliminary injunction (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/17/2025)	motion for preliminary injunction	4	PDF CL
2025-11-17	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)	memorandum in support of motion	32	PDF CL

	12-1	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)	Declaration Stephen Kane	34	PDF CL
	12-2	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)	Declaration Tomas Maulawin	59	PDF CL
	12-3	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)	Declaration Lindsay Bacher	93	PDF CL
2025-12-01	16	STATUS Report (joint) by Department of Justice (Johnson, Patrick) (Entered: 12/01/2025)	status report	2	PDF CL
2025-12-10	17	RESPONSE by Department of Justicein Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff City of Chicago for preliminary injunction 11 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 1.A, # 3 Exhibit 1.B, # 4 Exhibit 1.C, # 5 Exhibit 1.D, # 6 Exhibit 1.E, # 7 Exhibit 1.F, # 8 Exhibit 1.G, # 9 Exhibit 1.H)(Johnson, Patrick) (Entered: 12/10/2025)	response in opposition to motion	32	PDF CL
2025-12-12	19	Main document not on file

	19-1	MOTION by Movant Federation for American Immigration Reform for leave to file Amicus Brief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief)(Hauenschild, Jonathon) (Entered: 12/12/2025)	Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief	19	PDF CL
2025-12-16	22	BRIEF filed by Federation for American Immigration Reform by Jonathon P. Hauenschild. (Hauenschild, Jonathon) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office) Modified on 12/16/2025 (aee, ). (Entered: 12/16/2025)	brief	20	PDF CL
2025-12-17	23	REPLY by City of Chicago, City of Saint Paul to MOTION by Plaintiff City of Chicago for preliminary injunction 11, response in opposition to motion, 17 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Scott Hvizdos)(Metcalf, Chelsey) (Entered: 12/17/2025)	reply to response to motion	17	PDF CL

	23-1	REPLY by City of Chicago, City of Saint Paul to MOTION by Plaintiff City of Chicago for preliminary injunction 11, response in opposition to motion, 17 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Scott Hvizdos)(Metcalf, Chelsey) (Entered: 12/17/2025)	Declaration Scott Hvizdos	29	PDF CL
2026-01-15	28	MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Plaintiffs' motion 11 for preliminary injunction and stay of agency action is granted. The Court will separately enter a preliminary injunction order. By 1/21/26, Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide a Word version of a draft preliminary injunction order to the undersigned judge's proposed order inbox after discussing the form of the order with Defendants' counsel. In addition, the parties shall file a joint status report by 1/21/26 setting forth proposed next steps for this case. Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 1/15/2026. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, ) (Entered: 01/15/2026)	order on motion for preliminary injunction	21	PDF CL
2026-01-21	29	STATUS Report Joint Status Report by City of Chicago (Geary, Laura) (Entered: 01/21/2026)	status report	3	PDF CL
2026-02-03	31	ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction And Stay Of Agency Action. Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 2/3/2026. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, ) (Entered: 02/03/2026)	preliminary injunction	4	PDF CL
2026-03-09	34	MOTION by Plaintiffs City of Chicago, City of Saint Paul for leave to file First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - First Amended Complaint)(Kauffman, John) (Entered: 03/09/2026)	motion for leave to file	4	PDF CL
2026-03-10	39	First AMENDED complaint by City of Saint Paul, City of Chicago, City of Santa Monica against All Defendants (Kauffman, John) (Entered: 03/10/2026)	amended complaint	53	PDF CL
2026-03-19	42	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: At 39, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the City of Santa Monica as a Plaintiff. Plaintiffs now move 40 for a second preliminary injunction. They contend that the City of Santa Monica is similarly situated to the City of Saint Paul and the City of Chicago and that the same preliminary injunction issued with respect to Saint Paul and Chicago should be extended to Santa Monica. The Court agrees that Santa Monica is similarly situated, and Plaintiffs' motion 40 is granted. The Court will separately enter a preliminary injunction order. By 3/25/26, Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide a Word version of a draft preliminary injunction order to the undersigned judge's proposed order inbox after discussing the form of the order with Defendants' counsel. Presentment of motion set for 3/24/26 is stricken. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, ) (Entered: 03/19/2026)	order on motion for preliminary injunction	1	PDF CL
2026-03-25	43	ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Second Motion For Preliminary Injunction And Stay Of Agency Action. Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 3/25/2026. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, ) (Entered: 03/25/2026)		4	PDF CL
2026-04-17	48	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: The Court grants the joint motion 46 for a 28-day extension of the summary judgment briefing deadlines as follows: a. The parties shall file cross-motions for summary judgment by May 22, 2026; b. The parties shall file responses by June 22, 2026; and c. The parties shall file replies by July 6, 2026. Presentment hearing of 4/23/26 is stricken. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, ) (Entered: 04/17/2026)	Order on Motion for Extension of Time	1	PDF CL
2026-05-22	51	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Unopposed motion by Defendant to modify scheduling order regarding summary judgment briefing 50 is granted. Mailed notice. (jn,) (Entered: 05/22/2026)	Order on Motion to Amend/Correct	1	PDF CL
2026-06-05	54	MOTION by Defendant Department of Justice for summary judgment (Johnson, Patrick) (Entered: 06/05/2026)	Summary Judgment	31	PDF CL
2026-07-20	58	Main document not on file

	58-1	MOTION by Plaintiffs City of Chicago, City of Santa Monica, City of Saint Paul for summary judgment (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration Bacher, # 3 Declaration Charles, # 4 Declaration Cline, # 5 Declaration Jacob, # 6 Declaration Kane, # 7 Declaration Kapustianyk, # 8 Declaration Maulawin, # 9 Declaration Milstein)(Kauffman, John) (Entered: 07/20/2026)	Memorandum in Support	43	PDF CL
2026-08-11	67	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso: Defendant's unopposed motion 65 to extend time is granted. Defendants shall reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and respond to Plaintiffs' cross-motion by 9/8/26. Plaintiffs shall reply by 9/29/26. Presentment of motion set for 8/13/26 is stricken. Notice mailed by Judge's staff (lf, ) (Entered: 08/11/2026)	Order on Motion for Extension of Time	1	PDF CL
2026-10-07	72	ORDER : The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by its attorney, ANDREW S. BOUTROS, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, having filed its Omnibus Motion to Withdraw Designations of Former Assistant United States Attorneys, and having shown good cause in support of its motion, it is hereby ORDERED that the government is granted leave to withdraw the designation of the attorneys identified in its motion as counsel for the United States in the matters identified in Exhibit A to this Order and those counsel shall be removed from the electronic notification list for those matters. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 10/7/2026: Mailed notice. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/09/2026)	Order	15	PDF CL
2026-10-30	73	ORDER: For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion 54 for summary judgment is denied and Plaintiffs' motion 58 for summary judgment is granted. The Court will separately enter an order that effectuates this ruling. By 11/13/26, Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide a Word version of an order that effectuates this ruling to the undersigned judge's proposed order inbox after discussing the form of the order with Defendants' counsel. In addition, the parties shall file a joint status report by 11/13/26 setting forth proposed next steps for this case. Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 10/30/2026. Mailed notice (ags) (Entered: 10/30/2026)	Order AND Order on Motion for Summary Judgment AND Order on Motion for Summary Judgment AND ~Util - Set Deadlines	2	PDF CL

Browse and search the 28 court documents in the archive for this case.

Litigation

Court cases about transgender and other LGBTQ+ people · federal & state courts

Cases tracked

Case name Court Level Issue / type Circuit Outcome Year ≥ Year ≤

loading…

Case	Court	Level	Cir.	Year	Issue / type	Outcome	Docs

Every case in the corpus. Click a case name for its overview; click any column to sort, again to reverse. Each case has one main issue and may raise others (shown as "also…"); the Issue filter finds a case by either. Issues were checked case by case in September 2026. Level, circuit and outcome come from the coded caselaw dataset, so some rows are blank where a case hasn't been coded yet.

Archive stats

Group by

Direct counts from the archive index — instant and exact. Counts are FILINGS (docket entries); the distinct-case figure is shown alongside.

Cases by issue

Every tracked case once, under its main issue, split by the coded direction of its final ruling (the same reading as "Reached a final ruling" below): favorable or adverse to the LGBTQ-rights claim, or mixed. The empty part of each bar is cases with no coded ruling at the trial, circuit or Supreme Court stage yet, which is most of them; it is not a claim that they have no outcome. Choose a bar to list its cases.

Loading…

Reached a final ruling

The coded direction at the HIGHEST stage a case reached — trial-level, circuit-court or Supreme Court only. A preliminary-injunction ruling never counts as final, and a "procedural, no direction" or "unclear" coding is excluded rather than shown as an outcome.

Loading…

Case duration

Filed to terminated, from real CourtListener docket dates, among cases where EVERY tracked docket has terminated (an open appellate docket alongside a closed district one is pending, not resolved). No stage-by-stage date exists in this corpus, so only this one span is shown; dates cover only the tracked-docket tier — see the coverage note below the numbers.

Loading…

Cases by circuit

A real geographic map, states shaded by their circuit's case count relative to the busiest circuit (linear). The Federal Circuit has no state territory of its own (its jurisdiction is subject matter, not geography) and so never paints here, but still appears in the list and the table. Select a circuit below for its final-ruling mix.

Table view (stages, durations and circuits)

Expert witnesses

Filter Appears in

A curated roster of the recurring expert witnesses in this litigation, with every declaration, expert report, affidavit, deposition and trial-testimony document the corpus holds for each, grouped by case. Coverage is limited by what has been pulled: expert material is heavily attachment-borne, so a witness who testified in ten cases may show fewer here, and some documents are marked in a larger filing — the testimony sits inside an appendix or exhibit set rather than as its own entry.

Judges

Filter Appointed by Coded rulings

The record counts how the judge voted, not how the case came out. Dissents and concurrences are parsed from the opinions themselves ("NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting"), so a judge who dissented is scored against the panel's result — without that, Judge Niemeyer read 4–3 favorable to trans claimants. Partial dissents are shown but left out of the tally. Votes come from separate-writing headings and from the opinion's own joinder block ("Judge Richardson wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson, Judge Niemeyer… joined"), so a judge who joins a dissent without writing one still counts. Judges are resolved to real people against the Federal Judicial Center directory using the deciding court — there are 32 federal judges named Smith, and two Judge Pryors on the Eleventh Circuit. 195 ambiguous name/court pairs were dropped rather than merged, and a case with no opinion text in the corpus keeps the panel result for want of anything better. Small numbers are small numbers: three rulings is not a tendency.