DOJ Sues Illinois Over Law Protecting Immigrants at Courthouses

(ILLINOIS, UNITED STATES) The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit around December 23, 2025, against Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, arguing a new state law blocking certain civil immigration arrests near courthouses is unconstitutional and exposes federal officers to steep damages and risk.

What the Illinois law does: the Illinois Bivens Act (HB 1312)

The law at the center of the case is the Illinois Bivens Act (HB 1312), signed by Pritzker on December 9, 2025, and effective immediately. Key provisions include:

• It bars civil immigration arrests inside state courthouses.
• It creates a 1,000-foot buffer zone outside courthouses for people attending court.
• It allows private lawsuits against federal agents for alleged violations tied to due process or unreasonable searches and seizures.
• It sets $10,000 statutory damages for violations.

The Justice Department describes that damages provision as “massive punitive liability” aimed at federal immigration enforcement work.

Statements from the parties

“The Department of Justice will steadfastly protect law enforcement from unconstitutional state laws like Illinois’ that threaten massive punitive liability and compromise the safety of our officers.”
— Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate, Civil Division

The lawsuit targets Governor Pritzker and Attorney General Raoul directly.

Governor Pritzker, signing the bill in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood, used blunt language aimed at federal leaders and enforcement officials:

“Together, we’re sending a message to Donald Trump, to Kristi Noem, to Gregory Bovino and anyone else seeking to terrorize our people: Your divisiveness and your brutality are not welcome here.”

Pritzker also framed the law as necessary to protect access to the justice system:

“The idea that the Trump administration wants to prevent people from attending court… boggles the mind.”

Political and practical context

The legal fight sits amid a sharp political clash over how immigration arrests occur in public spaces—especially in places people must enter to resolve legal issues. For many immigrants, courthouses are where they handle traffic cases, custody disputes, and protection orders.

Illinois lawmakers backing the measure said it is a shield against fear that keeps people from showing up to court. The law explicitly declares court attendees “privileged from civil arrest” inside the building and within the buffer outside, framing the courthouse as a special zone.

For people facing eviction, child support cases, or orders of protection, missing a court date can have immediate consequences. Illinois supporters argue fear of arrest should not block access to these proceedings.

Federal government’s legal and safety claims

The Justice Department’s complaint, as described in the provided material, asserts:

• Illinois has no authority to regulate federal immigration actions.
• The law endangers officer safety by increasing risks of harassment, doxxing, and threats against federal officers.
• Creating statutory damages claims against federal agents effectively interferes with federal enforcement and raises separation-of-powers concerns.

DOJ also warns the damages provision could produce “massive punitive liability” that compromises officer safety and their ability to carry out federal duties.

Broader scope of the law

The Illinois Bivens Act extends beyond courthouses. It addresses how institutions must respond when law enforcement seeks information or access, including:

• Hospitals (disclosure and interaction rules)
• Colleges and universities (entry procedures and limitations on status-based decisions)
• Child care settings (protections and status-based prohibitions)

Important compliance deadlines set by the law:

Supporters say these measures protect patients, students, staff, children, and families from being singled out based on immigration status.

Enforcement backdrop: Operation Midway Blitz and arrest patterns

The measure is framed as a response to stepped-up enforcement actions, including a federal operation described in the source as Operation Midway Blitz targeting the Chicago area.

• The source indicates arrests rose and that many occurred at or near courthouses.
• Officials reportedly said enforcement focused on violent criminals, but records suggested few arrestees had violent-crime histories.
• That discrepancy is central to critics’ arguments that enforcement has swept in people with routine legal issues.

Immediate practical consequences and uncertainties

Two immediate, practical outcomes are in tension:

1. If federal officers continue to make arrests near courthouses, the Illinois law invites private lawsuits against agents and creates legal exposure for federal personnel.
2. If federal agents pull back, immigrant communities may feel safer attending required court hearings—potentially improving access to justice.

As of December 23, 2025, the federal lawsuit did not list a specific court venue or docket number, and no reported rulings or later developments were available. That leaves families, courthouse staff, and law enforcement uncertain about when or how rules might change.

Legal and political implications

• For federal officials, the case raises a separation-of-powers issue: whether a state can create damages claims that effectively punish federal agents for performing federal duties.
• DOJ’s position is that Illinois crossed the line by attempting to regulate federal enforcement and subject federal officers to state-created damages claims.
• The dispute also highlights the safety argument DOJ emphasizes: that the law could increase hostility toward officers by placing their conduct “in the crosshairs” and encouraging litigation, thereby feeding harassment, doxxing, or threats.

Governor Pritzker signaled he expected litigation but said the law was “in good shape,” reflecting the political stakes within a state that has often set its own guardrails around immigration cooperation despite federal control of immigration law.

Remaining gaps in the provided material

The provided material did not include:

• Names of any individual immigrant plaintiffs, courthouse visitors, hospital patients, or campus workers allegedly affected by Operation Midway Blitz or other enforcement.
• Any outside legal expert quoted on the merits of the case.
• A public response from Attorney General Kwame Raoul, so the state’s full legal argument is not included in this record.

Still, the quotes from Pritzker and Shumate illustrate how sharply divided the parties are.

Practical takeaway

For immigrants deciding whether to attend a hearing, the immediate question is practical and simple: is it safe to walk in? The Illinois law promises safety from civil immigration arrests inside courthouses and within 1,000 feet, while the federal lawsuit contends Illinois cannot lawfully make that assurance stick.

For further official information on the Justice Department’s Civil Division, which is leading the litigation, see: DOJ Civil Division. Any subsequent court filings should clarify venue, legal claims, and requested relief.