Case: State of Illinois v. Barr
1:19-cv-03461 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Filed Date: May 23, 2019
Closed Date: April 8, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case about the executive branch's authority to control state immigration policy. On May 23, 2019, the State of Illinois filed this lawsuit against the Attorney General (AG) of the United States in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Illinois alleged that the AG had unlawfully withheld essential federal funding for Illinois law enforcement agencies and criminal justice initiatives. Specifically, the AG placed immigration-related requirements on the states' ability to receive federal funds under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program ("Byrne JAG program"), including:
- Requiring certifications of compliance with federal statutes (8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644) that require the state to not prevent any government entities from exchanging information about people's immigration status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service;
- Requiring the state to enact statutes or policies that, for the purpose of aiding federal immigration investigations, allow federal agents to access detention facilities and notify the federal government when people are released from detention facilities;
- Prohibiting the state from publicly disclosing information about federal law enforcement in order to "conceal, harbor, or shield from detection" a fugitive from justice or undocumented person; and
- Requiring the state to collect information from any proposed subrecipient of the funds about their policies for communicating with federal immigration enforcement.
Illinois sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the AG's withholding of funds was unlawful. Specifically, the state argued that 1) Illinois law met the requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644; 2) 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644 are unconstitutional because they violate the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine; 3) imposing these conditions on funding violated the Byrne JAG statute, as well a federal statute limiting the conditions that the executive branch can place on law enforcement grants (34 U.S.C. § 10228(a)); 4) the conditions exceeded the executive branch's authority, in violation of the Spending Clause; 5) the conditions exceeded Congress's authority under the Spending Clause; and 6) the conditions violated the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine. Illinois sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, a writ of mandamus, and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Marvin E. Aspen, then reassigned to Judge Harry D. Leinenweber in June 2019.
The AG moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim in July 2019. Judge Leinenweber stayed the motion pending a status hearing on October 1, during which the parties stated they had agreed in principle to a stipulated judgement given the court's recent rulings in Evanston v. Barr and Chicago v. Barr. In both cases, Judge Leinenweber had held that the AG's conditions on the Byrne JAG program exceeded the executive branch's statutory authority, and that §§ 1373 and 1644 violate the anti-commandeering doctrine because they give the federal government too much control over state governments.
On October 23, 2019, the court entered a final judgment for the plaintiff. Pursuant to the judgments in Evanston v. Barr and Chicago v. Barr, the Court also entered a permanent injunction preventing the federal government from enforcing the challenged conditions on Byrne JAG grants in Illinois.
On December 20, 2019, the AG appealed the final judgment to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Docket # 20-1070). However, after President Biden took office and appointed a new Attorney General, the federal government voluntarily dismissed the appeal on April 8, 2021. This case is now closed
Summary Authors
Isobel Blakeway-Phillips (2/21/2025)
Related Cases
City of Evanston v. Sessions, Northern District of Illinois (2018)
City of Chicago v. Sessions III, Northern District of Illinois (2018)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15667096/parties/state-of-illinois-v-barr/
General, Sarah A.
Attorney, Daniel Tenny,
Attorney, Brad P.
Bernie, Andrew Marshall (Illinois)
Chicago, AUSA - (Illinois)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15667096/state-of-illinois-v-barr/
Last updated April 10, 2026, 4:48 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 23, 2019
Closing Date: April 8, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
State of Illinois
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
United States Attorney General
Defendant Type(s):
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)
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Illinois 1:19-cv-03461
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 20-01070
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 18-03509
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
Impoundment (mandatory spending)
Case Summary of State of Illinois v. Barr, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/46122/ (last updated 2/21/2025).