Lawyers who specialize in suing Chicago cops seek special prosecutor to go after ICE

By Jonathan Bilyk.| Legal Newsline
The Center Square

A Chicago law firm, with a business model built on raking in big, taxpayer-funded fees in cases representing people suing Chicago cops and who court documents indicate may have been influencing the policies of controversial former Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, have stepped to the fore of a push to bypass Foxx’s successor in a bid to begin criminally investigating and prosecuting federal immigration enforcement agents.

On March 9, lawyers with the firm of Loevy & Loevy announced their intent to file a petition with the Cook County Circuit Court for the appointment of a special prosecutor specifically assigned to pursue state law criminal charges against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents for their actions amid last year’s Operation Midway Blitz and other immigration enforcement actions.

In the announcement, the Loevy firm said the petition was being filed on behalf of “a coalition of more than 200 elected officials, community organizations, journalists, attorneys, academics, religious leaders, and other stakeholders.”

The firm asserted a court-appointed special prosecutor is needed because neither Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke nor any other state or federal agency has launched an investigation or prosecution of any agents who they claim committed crimes “under the guise of conducting immigration enforcement operations” which “terrorized Cook County communities.”

In an immediate response, Burke said she shares the coalition’s concerns over the alleged misconduct committed by ICE and Border Patrol agents in Chicago and elsewhere in the region amid those immigration raids.

But she warned that appointing a special prosecutor would actually jeopardize the ability of the state to actually secure any convictions, under the law and precedent from the Illinois Supreme Court, specifically.

“My office’s goal is not to merely charge, but to successfully prosecute and convict criminal ICE agents,” Burke wrote. “The issues at hand are difficult due to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and challenges in acquiring evidence from federal law enforcement under this current administration.

“We are obligated to follow the law, evaluate evidence that is presented to us, and make a charging decision based on the facts.”

She pledged to oppose the petition.

The petition comes shortly after a federal appeals court clearly ruled that a Chicago federal judge greatly overstepped constitutional bounds in delivering an injunction against ICE and Border Patrol sought by the Loevy firm and their anti-immigration enforcement coalition.

In that ruling, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declared U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, trampled the separation of powers when she sought to make ICE and Border Patrol answer to her when conducting immigration raids and related actions in and around Chicago.

She specifically sought to all but eliminate the ability of federal agents from defending themselves against “protesters,” rioters and other activists who would routinely stalk and harass the agents and seek to physically interfere with immigration law enforcement operations.

In her ruling, Ellis noted “protesters” had engaged in violence against agents in some instances, but merely chalked it up to neighbors “who have shown up for each other.”

She said agents’ actions “shocked the conscience.”

That order had come after the Loevy firm and its anti-ICE coalition filed suit in federal court seeking just such an order.

The appeals panel, however, said the order was far in excess of Ellis’ authority and they took the rare step of vacating the order completely, not just overturning it, because they said they needed to send a message to Ellis and other judges that acting in such a way to support anti-ICE activists while trampling the separation of powers cannot continue.

Now, the Loevy firm said Cook County courts must also wade into the fight against federal immigration enforcement, and sidestep Cook County’s elected chief prosecutor because they assert she isn’t doing enough to haul ICE agents into court.

In addition to constitutional and legal implications, the move carries strong political overtones, as well.

O’Neill Burke, a Democrat and a former judge, was elected to the post of Cook County State’s Attorney in 2024, after stepping down from the Illinois First District Appellate Court in what she called a bid to restore the state’s attorney’s office to its constitutional role prosecuting criminals.

O’Neill Burke pledged, particularly, to reverse key controversial policies ensconced under Foxx easing prosecutions and detention of accused criminals and even violent offenders, or allowing most retail shoplifters to escape felony prosecutions, among others.

Critics asserted those policies played a large role in encouraging Chicago’s crime surge in the early 2020s.

Foxx ultimately decided not to seek reelection.

O’Neill Burke prevailed in a close and bruising Democratic primary election fight against Clayton Harris III, who was supported by Chicago’s Democratic Party bosses and a left-wing coalition that had also backed Foxx.

Among Harris’ and Foxx’s strongest supporters were attorneys with the Loevy firm.

The firm has built much of its practice on regularly and prominently suing the city of CHicago and Chicago police officers over alleged wrongful convictions.

For instance, city records showed that between 2010 and 2023 alone, Loevy collected $33 million in attorney’s fees from Chicago taxpayers for lawsuits accusing police of violating the rights of accused criminals.

In recently filed court documents, it was revealed that attorneys from the Loevy firm, working in leadership at the so-called Exoneration Project, met with representatives of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office and even Foxx herself from 2020 to 2022. The court documents indicate those meetings allegedly led to the development of special protocols developed by Foxx’s office on how to handle certain malicious prosecution claims.

Those protocols, in turn, resulted in easier avenues for lawyers from the Loevy firm and others to sue the city in search of taxpayer-funded multimillion dollar settlements and the resulting fees for the attorneys bringing the cases, including the Loevy firm.

For her part, O’Neill Burke noted her office is in the process of drafting and implementing “a comprehensive protocal to hold ICE agents accountable within the confines of the law,” to aid future prosecutions should a future Democratic president “decides to pursue criminal charges.”

“The reported plan to petition for a special prosecutor will make it more difficult for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office to prosecute and win convictions against ICE agents who break the law and secure justice for victims harmed by their conduct,” O’Neill Burke said. “It is also frivolous, contrary to centuries of legal precedent and court rulings, riddled with factual errors, and ultimately hampers my office’s ability to hold ICE agents accountable.

“The stakes are too high for us to get this wrong, and I will strenuously oppose this petition.”