The Legal Battles of the Federal Funding Freeze

By: David Rodriguez

Edited by: Sam Yip and anna dellit

Following the multiple executive orders of President Donald Trump, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum titled M-25-13, directing all federal agencies to temporarily pause federal financial assistance involving nongovernmental organizations and issues, such as climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion. [1] This action aimed to review and match federal government spending with the Trump administration's agenda. [2] The broad scope of the memo sparked uncertainty among states, schools, and organizations that receive trillions of dollars from the federal government. [3] Later, the Trump administration clarified that direct assistance programs such as food stamps, Medicare, and student loans would not be affected, but provided an uncertain stance at times regarding programs like Medicare. [4] 

This prompted states and nongovernmental organizations to turn to the courts and launch lawsuits against the Trump administration. On January 28th, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan from the District of Columbia issued an administrative stay until Monday, February 3, blocking the memo moments before it was said to take into effect. [5] This action arose from an emergency hearing involving nonprofit groups that receive federal assistance. [6]

The Office of Management and Budget then rescinded M-25-13 the next day. According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, these efforts were to end both the confusion that news outlets and courts have caused, while also ending all legal challenges. [7] Leavitt also states that eliminating the M-25-13 was not a rescission of the efforts to administer a funding freeze. [8] This prompted U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell to issue a temporary restraining order on January 31. [9] This legal challenge was brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia in a Rhode Island Federal Courthouse. [10] The temporary restraining order prohibited the Trump administration from freezing any federal grant and loan payments. [11] Chief Judge McConnell called the funding freeze unconstitutional due to a violation of the separation of powers where the executive exercised authority reserved for congress. [12] There is no federal law that would allow the executive branch to implement such an order by itself. [13] Chief Judge McConnell also sees this federal freeze as a mechanism that causes harm to states like California’s relief efforts with wildfires. [14]

Similar conclusions were made on February 3, when U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan held a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order. Judge AliKhan justified the granting of this temporary restraining order by displaying how a nonprofit that assists disabled West Virginians living in their own homes still could not access funds that they receive from the Department of Health and Human Services. [15] This resulted in the layoff of one employee and has led to services being reduced. [16] It is clear that the Trump administration did not obey Judge AliKhan’s original order and with the memo implicating as much as three trillion dollars in assistance [17], action needed to be taken. Judge AliKhan highlights similar concerns as Chief Judge McConnell regarding constitutionality. Judge Alikhan states that this memo tried to snatch the power of the purse from the only branch that is entitled to it, which is Congress. [18]

Throughout these legal challenges, states and nongovernmental agencies face real concern. The Trump administration crafted a 51-page spreadsheet that was sent out to federal agencies, highlighting programs that would be under review. [19] The programs ranged from special education to pool safety. [20] Many states had trouble accessing funds through Medicaid and online portals used to access federal assistance were temporarily taken offline. [21] Other organizations that involved services like childcare in Wisconsin had issues accessing federal funding. [22] Whole cities like Prichard, Alabama had concerns about federal infrastructure funding that would be critical to fix their drinking water system, but now was in jeopardy. [23] 

In February, Judge McConnell was notified of multiple Democratic-led states still having trouble accessing billions of dollars even after the issuance of the temporary restraining order. [24] He believes that this was cause for states to have a “rightful concern” while making it clear that the court was ready to enforce the temporary restraining order. [25] During the preliminary injunction hearing, Judge McConnell reasserted the unconstitutionality of the federal funding freeze stating that with this order, the executive would put itself above Congress. [26] Depending on the state, federal funding can account for around 18 to 50 percent of the state’s budget. [27] A federal funding freeze or cut means states must make up for this sum, causing hardships for states with stressed budgets. [28]

While the courts are addressing this attempt at a federal funding freeze, there are other mechanisms targeting state and federally funded programs. At the agency level, such as in the Department of Agriculture, more than one billion dollars of additional funding provided by the Biden administration has been halted. [29] This decision will impact the Local Food for Schools program and the Local Food Purchase program which provides funds to schools and food assistance organizations. [30] While the Department of Agriculture unfroze the existing funding agreements for the Local Food Purchase program, the following round of funding will not occur. [31] Additionally, Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency vow to cut one trillion dollars in overall federal spending. [32]

On the congressional side, a continuing resolution bill has passed the Senate which will fund the government until September 30 with a thirteen billion dollar cut in nondefense spending impacting earmarks for items such as higher education. [33] Additionally, many programs in the continuing resolution do not have established funding levels such as Pell Grants allowing the Trump administration to have the ability and ask Congress to withdraw funds. [34] As federal funds become a continuous target, ongoing legal battles about freezes or cuts become vital to follow.

Notes:

1. National Council of Nonprofits et al v. Office of Management and Budget et al, 1:25-cv-00239, D.D.C, 1 (2025) 

2. Lindsay Whitehurst, “Judge in Nation’s Capital Extends Block on Trump Administration Federal Funding Freeze,” The Associated Press News, February 3, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-federal-grants-loans-funding-freeze-court-1bc457d8e333dd8a8f374572ea33927. AP 1

3. Chris Megerian and Lindsay Whitehurst, “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans,” The Associated Press News, The Associated Press, January 29, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-pause-federal-grants-aid-f9948b9996c0ca971f0065fac85737ce. 

4. Megerian et al., “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans”

5. Chris Megerian, Zeke Miller, and Lisa Mascaro, “Trump White House Rescinds Memo Freezing Federal Money After Widespread Confusion,” The Associated Press News, January 29, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-pause-federal-grants-aid-6d41961940585544fa43a3f66550e7be. 

6. Merergian et al., “Trump White House Rescinds Memo Freezing Federal Money After Widespread Confusion”

7. Merergian et al., “Trump White House Rescinds Memo Freezing Federal Money After Widespread Confusion”

8. Jordan Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC,” WUSA9, January 31, 2025, https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/legal/judge-mcconnell-blocks-federal-funding-freeze-in-22-states-and-dc-omb-office-of-management-and-budget/65-a69062f4-48ae-463e-972d-d43b40287d69.

9. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

10. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

11. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

12. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

13. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

14. Fischer, “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC”

15.  Maureen Groppe, “Judge Extends Pause on Trump Funding Freeze After Finding Administration Has Not Complied,” USA Today, February 3, 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/03/judge-trump-administration-funding-freeze/78180951007/.

16. Groppe, “Judge Extends Pause on Trump Funding Freeze After Finding Administration Has Not Complied”

17. NCN et al v. OMB et al, 24.

18. NCN et al v. OMB et al, 25

19. Megerian et al., “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans”

20. Megerian et al., “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans”

21. Alys Davies, Kayla Epstein, and Max Matza,“White House Rescinds Memo on Freezing Federal Grants and Loans,” BBC, January 29, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyv48540n4po.

22. Whitehurst, “Judge in Nation’s Capital Extends Block on Trump Administration Federal Funding Freeze”

23. Megerian et al., “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans”

24. Nate Raymond, “US States Tell Judge Trump Not Fully Following Order Blocking Funding Freeze,” Reuters, February 6, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-states-tell-judge-trump-not-fully-following-order-blocking-funding-freeze-2025-02-06/.

25. Raymond, “US States Tell Judge Trump Not Fully Following Order Blocking Funding Freeze”

26. Elena Moore, “A Second Federal Judge Has Ruled to Block the Trump Administration’s Spending Freeze,” NPR, March 6, 2025 https://www.npr.org/2025/03/06/nx-s1-5312069/trump-federal-funding-freeze-court-order.  

27. Kennedy Andara and Mimla Wardak, “The Consequences of a Federal Funding Freeze in the States,” Center for American Progress, February 6, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-consequences-of-a-federal-funding-freeze-in-the-states/.

28. Andara et al., “The Consequences of a Federal Funding Freeze in the States.”

29. Marcia Brown, “USDA Cancels $1B in Local Food Purchasing for Schools, Food Banks,” Politico, March 10, 2025 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/10/usda-cancels-local-food-purchasing-for-schools-food-banks-00222796

30. Brown, “USDA Cancels $1B in Local Food Purchasing for Schools, Food Banks”

31. Brown, “USDA Cancels $1B in Local Food Purchasing for Schools, Food Banks”

32. Nathan Layne and Costas Pitas, “Musk Says he Will Finish Most of $1 Trillion Federal Cost Within Weeks,” Reuters, March 27, 2025 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-says-1-trillion-us-spending-cuts-possible-without-touching-services-2025-03-27/

33. Maria Carrasco, “Senate Passes Federal Spending Bill, Averting Government Shutdown,” National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, March 17, 2025 https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/35850/Senate_Passes_Federal_Spending_Bill_Averting_Government_Shutdown

34. Carrasco, “Senate Passes Federal Spending Bill, Averting Government Shutdown”
    

Bibliography:

Andara, Kennedy and Mimla Wardak. “The Consequences of a Federal Funding Freeze in the States” Center for American Progress, February 6, 2025. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-consequences-of-a-federal-funding-freeze-in-the-states/.

Brown, Marcia. “USDA Cancels $1B in Local Food Purchasing for Schools, Food Banks” Politico, March 10, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/10/usda-cancels-local-food-purchasing-for-schools-food-banks-00222796

Carrasco, Maria. “Senate Passes Federal Spending Bill, Averting Government Shutdown” National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, March 17, 2025. https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/35850/Senate_Passes_Federal_Spending_Bill_Averting_Government_Shutdown

Davies, Alys, Epstein, Kayla, and Max Matza. “White House Rescinds Memo on Freezing Federal Grants and Loans” BBC, January 29, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyv48540n4po.

Fischer, Jordan. “‘No Legal Authority’ | JudgeBlocks Federal Funding Freeze in 22 States and DC” WUSA9, January 31, 2025. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/legal/judge-mcconnell-blocks-federal-funding-freeze-in-22-states-and-dc-omb-office-of-management-and-budget/65-a69062f4-48ae-463e-972d-d43b40287d69.

Groppe, Maureen. “Judge Extends Pause on Trump Funding Freeze After Finding Administration Has Not Complied” USA Today, February 3, 2025. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/03/judge-trump-administration-funding-freeze/78180951007/.

Layne, Nathan and Costas Pitas. “Musk Says he Will Finish Most of $1 Trillion Federal Cost Within Weeks” Reuters, March 27, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-says-1-trillion-us-spending-cuts-possible-without-touching-services-2025-03-27/

Megerian, Chris, Miller, Zeke, and Lisa Mascaro. “Trump White House Rescinds Memo Freezing Federal Money After Widespread Confusion” The Associated Press News, January 29, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-pause-federal-grants-aid-6d41961940585544fa43a3f66550e7be.

Megerian, Chris, and Lindsay Whitehurst. “Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration Freeze on Federal Grants and Loans” The Associated Press News, January 29, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-pause-federal-grants-aid-f9948b9996c0ca971f0065fac85737ce.

Moore, Elena. “A Second Federal Judge Has Ruled to Block the Trump Administration’s Spending Freeze” NPR, March 6, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/06/nx-s1-5312069/trump-federal-funding-freeze-court-order

National Council of Nonprofits et al v. Office of Management and Budget et al, 1:25-cv-00239, D.D.C, 1 (2025)

Raymond, Nate. “US States Tell Judge Trump Not Fully Following Order Blocking Funding Freeze” Reuters, February 6, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-states-tell-judge-trump-not-fully-following-order-blocking-funding-freeze-2025-02-06/.

Whitehurst, Lindsay. “Judge in Nation’s Capital Extends Block on Trump Administration Federal Funding Freeze” The Associated Press News, February 3, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/trump-federal-grants-loans-funding-freeze-court-1bc457d8e333dd8a8f374572ea33927.c

Governor Pritzker’s Fight Against ICE

By: Baylee Krulewitz

Edited by: clark mahoney and Eliana Aemro Selassie

On February 6th, the US Justice Department sued the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago on grounds of interference with the Trump administration’s recent immigration enforcement policies. Specifically, the Justice Department claimed that Chicago’s status as a sanctuary city is unlawful. In response, Illinois governor JB Pritzker has stood his ground, claiming that the laws in place in Illinois are there to protect against violent crime as best they can. 

“Sanctuary city” is a term that can often be thrown around quite loosely, especially in times of heated debate over immigration policy. Part of the reason for this confusion is that its definition is fairly ambiguous. The status of sanctuary city is one that any place can apply to itself, without having to check any boxes or fulfill any requirements. Generally, though, a sanctuary city is one where the municipality neglects to use its resources to fund federal immigration practices or crackdowns. 

So, what are these sanctuary laws that the Justice Department is so upset about? In Chicago, the city follows  the Welcoming City Ordinance, which states that “the City will not ask about your immigration status, disclose that information to authorities, or, most importantly, deny you City services based on your immigration status.”[1]  On the state level, Illinois operates under the powerful TRUST Act, which Republican Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law in 2017. The law declared that “law enforcement shall not stop, arrest, search, detain or continue to detain a person solely due to immigration status.”[2] The intention behind this act was to improve relations between immigrants of all citizen statuses and law enforcement officers, in hopes of getting the two to team up against violent crime. The act requires a warrant from a judge before allowing detainment by law enforcement, in an attempt to make the minimization of violence the top priority for police forces. In a press release from the governor’s office announcing the signing of the act, it was made very clear that the act is not meant to estrange Illinois law enforcement from federal law enforcement, saying, “The TRUST Act makes clear that Illinois will be a good partner with the federal government, and law enforcement will continue communicating with federal immigration and law enforcement officials.”[3]  However, this principle has disintegrated in recent times. 

In its lawsuit against the state of Illinois, the Justice Department asserts that the state violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, which states that federal law is the supreme law of the land. In other words, the lawsuit says that the TRUST Act is failing to do the very thing it set out to do: balance the well-being of Illinois residents with compliance with federal law. In response to the lawsuit, Gov. Pritzker provided a direct attack on President Trump, stating “​​Unlike Donald Trump, we follow the law in Illinois. Now, maybe they put up with this kind of garbage in Florida, which is the home state of the head of the DOJ, but in Illinois we have grit, we are tough, we are strong and Donald Trump has no idea what he is up against when he attacks Illinois.”[4]  So, just a few action-packed weeks into Trump’s second presidency, Illinois and its administration are already at odds with the federal government. 

So what now? US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has already begun Trump-ordered sweeps in Chicago, with over 100 people already having been detained since the new administration began.[5] Soon after the lawsuit was cast, the ACLU of Illinois issued a statement demonstrating support for the TRUST Act as well as Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance, highlighting the role of these legislative acts in limiting violent crime.[6] So, both sides of the fight over immigration policy in this country have gritted their teeth, indicating that this battle will be long, complex, and worrisome not just for the people of Illinois, but for Americans across the nation. 

NOTES:

1. Anon. “Sanctuary Cities FAQs.” Chicago.gov. https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Office%20of%20New%20Americans/PDFs/SanctuaryCitiesFAQs.pdf

2. Anon. 2017. “Gov. Rauner Signs TRUST Act.” Illinois.gov. August 28, 2017  https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.14747.html 

3. Anon. 2017. “Gov. Rauner Signs TRUST Act.” Illinois.gov. August 28, 2017  https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.14747.html 

4. Lisette Nuñez. 2025.  “Illinois Governor JB Pritzker responds to 'garbage' DOJ lawsuit over sanctuary city policies. ABC7. February 7, 2025 https://abc7chicago.com/post/illinois-governor-jb-pritzker-responds-garbage-doj-lawsuit-sanctuary-city-policies/15877508/ 

5. Lisette Nuñez and Craig Wall. 2025. Mayor reaffirms Chicago's welcoming city status amid ICE raids; at least 100 arrested in area. ABC7. January 28, 2025. https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-chicago-immigration-raids-today-arrests-continue-mayor-brandon-johnson-called-testify-sanctuary-city-policy/15843173/

6. Anon. 2025. ACLU of Illinois responds to Trump administration lawsuit challenging state and local policies prioritizing public safety over federal civil immigration enforcement. ACLU Illinois. February 6, 2025.   https://www.aclu-il.org/en/press-releases/aclu-illinois-responds-trump-administration-lawsuit-challenging-state-and-local 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

“Sanctuary Cities FAQs.” Chicago.gov, https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Office%20of%20New%20Americans/PDFs/SanctuaryCitiesFAQs.pdf

“Gov. Rauner Signs TRUST Act.” Illinois.gov, August 28, 2017, https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.14747.html 

“Illinois Governor JB Pritzker responds to 'garbage' DOJ lawsuit over sanctuary city policies.” ABC7, February 7, 2025, https://abc7chicago.com/post/illinois-governor-jb-pritzker-responds-garbage-doj-lawsuit-sanctuary-city-policies/15877508/ 

“Mayor reaffirms Chicago's welcoming city status amid ICE raids; at least 100 arrested in area.” ABC7, January 28, 2025, https://abc7chicago.com/post/ice-chicago-immigration-raids-today-arrests-continue-mayor-brandon-johnson-called-testify-sanctuary-city-policy/15843173/

“ACLU of Illinois responds to Trump administration lawsuit challenging state and local policies prioritizing public safety over federal civil immigration enforcement.” ACLU Illinois, February 6, 2025, https://www.aclu-il.org/en/press-releases/aclu-illinois-responds-trump-administration-lawsuit-challenging-state-and-local 

What to Make of Nayib Bukele’s Proposal to Outsource U.S. Incarceration

By: Alexandra Henriquez

Edited by: Anna Dellit and Alicia Gu

Following Trump’s re-election to the Oval Office, the United States (U.S.) Senate quickly confirmed former U.S. Senator of Florida, Marco Rubio, as the new Secretary of State. Within the first week of February, Rubio met with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele in the country’s capital, San Salvador, to discuss regional security cooperation, economic partnerships, and efforts to curb migration through strengthened diplomatic relations. According to the Department of State’s Press Release on February 3, 2025, “Multiple agreements were struck to fight the waves of illegal mass migration.” [1] Bukele agreed to take back all Salvadoran MS-13 gang members who are in the United States unlawfully and to incarcerate criminal undocumented immigrants from any country. Additionally, he “offered to house in his jails dangerous American criminals, including U.S. citizens and legal residents.” President Trump told reporters, “I’m just saying if we had a legal right to do it, I would do it in a heartbeat.” [2] The offer raises essential questions about the legality and implications of outsourcing incarceration, as well as the rights of American citizens.

Sending U.S. citizens or legal residents to Salvadoran prisons mirrors the trend of prison privatization, the outsourcing of incarceration to external entities to ease overcrowded facilities and reduce government costs. These external entities prioritize cost-cutting over rehabilitation. [3] Bukele’s proposal could be seen as an international extension of this trend, where the United States effectively contracts out incarceration to a foreign government. Just like private prisons have been criticized for poor conditions, a deal with El Salvador could result in even less oversight and accountability for how prisoners are treated. The key difference between Bukele’s offer and the current privatization of U.S. prisons is that Bukele’s offer involves transferring incarcerated individuals to a foreign jurisdiction where U.S. legal standards and oversight would no longer apply. While private prisons within the U.S. operate under federal and state regulations, albeit with significant concerns regarding transparency and conditions, outsourcing incarceration to El Salvador could remove even these minimal safeguards. This raises serious questions about due process, prisoners’ rights, and the U.S. government’s responsibility to its citizens.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a U.S. citizen cannot be legally deported. In Fung Ho v. White (1922), the court reaffirmed congressional power “to order at any time the deportation of aliens whose presence in the country it deems hurtful, and may do so by appropriate executive proceedings” when evaluating the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1892. [4] The court notes, however, that “jurisdiction in the executive to order deportation exists only if the person arrested is an alien. The claim of citizenship is thus a denial of an essential jurisdictional fact.” This ruling established that non-citizens who claim to be lawfully present in the U.S. have the right to a judicial hearing before deportation. The question then turns to whether or not there is an exception for sending U.S. citizens abroad for detention.

Guantánamo Bay is an infamous loophole where detainees are held outside of the U.S. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report from November 2021 goes through Supreme Court precedent on due process for Guantanamo Bay detainees. While Guantanamo Bay is not technically U.S. territory, Rasul v. Bush (2004) held that the U.S. has jurisdiction over the area. Hence, detainees at Guantánamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts, and Boumediene v. Bush (2008) found that the right to habeas corpus also applies. [5] Yet the ruling was limited to habeas corpus and did not decide whether detainees have broader due process rights under the Fifth Amendment (such as a right to a fair trial). The D.C. Circuit Court in Al Hela v. Biden (2023) aimed to address whether non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo Bay have due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. Still, the court avoided the question by applying judicial restraint, refusing “to decide whether a right applies when it finds that the right has not been violated.” [6]

Guantánamo has been heavily criticized for inhumane interrogation techniques. Similarly, Human Rights Watch has reported on the inhumane force used by El Salvadoran prisons. [7] In 2023, the U.S. Department of State released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for El Salvador wrote that although “reports of gang violence decreased significantly, allowing citizens to exercise their right to life, liberty, and security of person,” it has come at the cost of arbitrary and politically motivated arrests and deprivation of life, due process failures, and inhumane or torturous prison conditions. [8] As the Trump administration considers its stance on Bukele’s offer, it must first address critical questions of citizenship and deportation before then addressing issues of due process and fundamental human rights.

Notes:

1. U.S. Department of State. “Secretary Rubio’s Meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.” February 3, 2025. https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-meeting-with-salvadoran-president-nayib-bukele/ 

2.  Chappell, Bill. “Would It Be Legal for Trump to Send U.S. Citizens to El Salvador’s Jails?” NPR. February 5, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5287670/trump-el-salvador-americans-prison. 

3. Badmus, Gabriella A. “Privatization and Flawed Punishment: An Economic Analysis and Critique of Private Prisons in the United States and United Kingdom.” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business. Vol. 44, 129-148. 2024. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol44/iss1/3 

4. Ng Fung Ho v. White. 259 U.S. 276. Supreme Court of the United States. 1922. 

5. Congressional Research Service. “Due Process Rights for Guantanamo Detainees.” Legal Sidebar LSB10654. November 2, 2021. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10654. 

6. Proctor, Haley. “D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: Encore!” Yale Journal on Regulation. April 17, 2023. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-encore/. 

7. Human Rights Watch. “El Salvador: Inhumane Prison Lockdown Treatment,” Human Rights Watch. April 29, 2020. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/29/el-salvador-inhumane-prison-lockdown-treatment.

8. U.S. Department of State. El Salvador 2023 Human Rights Report. 1. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/el-salvador/.  

Bibliography:

1. Badmus, Gabriella A. “Privatization and Flawed Punishment: An Economic Analysis and Critique of Private Prisons in the United States and United Kingdom.” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, Vol. 44, 129-148. 2024. 

2. Chappell, Bill. “Would It Be Legal for Trump to Send U.S. Citizens to El Salvador’s Jails?” NPR. February 5, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5287670/trump-el-salvador-americans-prison. 

3. Badmus, Gabriella A. “Privatization and Flawed Punishment: An Economic Analysis and Critique of Private Prisons in the United States and United Kingdom.” Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business. Vol. 44, 129-148 (2024). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol44/iss1/3 

4. Congressional Research Service. “Due Process Rights for Guantanamo Detainees.” Legal Sidebar LSB10654. November 2, 2021. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10654. 

5. Ng Fung Ho v. White. 259 U.S. 276. Supreme Court of the United States. 1922.​

6. Human Rights Watch, “El Salvador: Inhumane Prison Lockdown Treatment,” Human Rights Watch. April 29, 2020. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/29/el-salvador-inhumane-prison-lockdown-treatment.

7. Proctor, Haley. “D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: Encore!” Yale Journal on Regulation. April 17, 2023. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/d-c-circuit-review-reviewed-encore/. 

8. U.S. Department of State, El Salvador 2023 Human Rights Report. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/el-salvador/. 

9. U.S. Department of State. “Secretary Rubio’s Meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.” February 3, 2025. https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-meeting-with-salvadoran-president-nayib-bukele/ 

The Effect of Supreme Court Decisions on Illinois Gun Policy

By: Yitong Zhang

Edited by: Isabella Canales and Anisha Iqbal

The US exhibits an unusually high rate of gun mortality, with over 46,000 firearm-related deaths reported in 2023.[1] Compared to other high-income countries, US citizens are 11.4 times more likely to die in a gun homicide.[2] In light of this “public health epidemic,” firearm legislation has become an increasingly contested topic in the United States.[3] Different groups, often divided on partisan lines, hold varying opinions on how best to promote public safety in the wake of increasing gun violence. In the legal realm, these arguments hinge on differing interpretations of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has increasingly weighed in, deciding several key cases regarding Second Amendment rights in the past 20 years. Focusing on recent Illinois laws as a case study, I explore how Supreme Court rulings affect the creation of local gun legislation, in many cases limiting the scope of what local legislatures can legally enact.

Legal Context: Second Amendment Supreme Court Cases

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution establishes “the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”[4] Interpretations of this text have shifted greatly over time, especially as changes in modern technology bring up challenging questions about regulation and implementation. Lawmakers and judges must attempt to reconcile the historical context of the original text with the very different technological reality of today, following the guidance of the Supreme Court as the country’s highest court.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Court established that the individual right to possess a firearm is protected by the Second Amendment.[5] The 2010 case McDonald v. City of Chicago later extended this protection of gun rights, applying it to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment.[6]

The Court again deliberated the scope of the Second Amendment in Caetano v. Massachusetts. In accordance with the Heller ruling, which established that the Second Amendment “extends… to… arms… that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” stun guns and other modern weapons count as protected arms.[7] 6 years later, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. V. Bruen (2022), the Court ruled that any newly established firearm restrictions must be consistent with historical firearm laws, or else they constitute a breach of equal protection under the Second Amendment.[8]

Most recently, in United States v. Rahimi (2024) the Court upheld laws restricting gun ownership rights of people convicted of domestic violence, qualifying the Second Amendment as fundamental but “not unlimited.”[9] The written opinions revealed the confusion caused by the Bruen ruling, which established unclear guidelines that feel incongruous with the current times. In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor notes that continuing to use historical principles from time periods that discounted women and people of color contradicts modern ideals of American democracy. Overall, the Supreme Court has inconsistently resolved the contradiction between historical and modern levels of scrutiny. While the Bruen ruling employed an originalist framework that examined the Second Amendment at the time it was ratified, Heller takes the opposite approach. Instead of restricting Second Amendment protections to situations referred to in the original context, it extended the scope to non-traditional weapons. The Court’s reasoning contains many discrepancies between cases decided less than a decade apart, leaving behind unclear guidelines for the future.

Karina’s Law

The Rahimi ruling established guidelines for the implementation of Karina’s Law, an Illinois law passed in January 2025. Named after Karina Gonzalez, who filed for an order of protection from her husband 48 hours before he shot and killed her and her daughter, it requires law enforcement to confiscate firearms from anyone with an order of protection against them, within a time frame of 96 hours.[10] State Senator Celina Villanueva, the sponsor of the bill, claims that it “closes a dangerous loophole” previously rendering it unclear who was responsible for firearm removal.[11]

While the bill garnered bipartisan support in the Illinois General Assembly, opponents stated concerns that it violates the right to due process, claiming that the preemptive removal of a gun assumes guilt before conviction. However, State Attorney Jamie Mosser expressed confidence that any legal challenge against the law would fail, as it only permits temporary firearm removals.[12]

Protect Illinois Communities Act

The 2023 Protect Illinois Communities Act, introduced by Governor Pritzker following the 2022 mass shooting in Highland Park, presented a much more controversial piece of legislation. Similar to local laws previously enacted in Chicago, it banned the sale of specific assault weapons and attachments.[13] It also increased regulation on existing assault weapons, requiring current owners to file an endorsement affidavit using their Firearm Owner’s Identification Card account. Section 2 of the law listed a number of exemptions, including several categories of federal employees in addition to various classifications of non-residents. The Act immediately faced lawsuits on both the local and federal levels.

In Illinois, the Circuit Court of Macon County entered a declaratory judgment for the bill, citing a prima facie violation of equal protection because the bill singled out categories of individuals exempt from the ban. The state appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed and upheld the ban.

On the national level, federal District Court Judge Stephen Glynn issued a temporary injunction to halt the implementation of the bill, which was then put on hold by the 7th Circuit Court. A 3-judge appeals panel from the Circuit Court reviewed and upheld the ban, recognizing that restrictions imposed on other amendments have historically been sustained. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied certiorari and sent it back to the District Judge for trial. 18 months after the original proceedings, Judge Glynn imposed a permanent injunction on the bill, with a stay for 30 days to allow appeals. The Illinois Attorney General subsequently appealed the case to the 7th Circuit Court, which decided to allow enforcement of the law to continue while it deliberates on a final judgment.

As of now, the Protect Illinois Communities Act remains in effect, limiting the sale and possession of assault weapons in the state. While it has survived many legal challenges, its future stays uncertain. The 7th Circuit Court will likely uphold the ban a second time, but gun rights lobbyists would almost certainly appeal once again to the Supreme Court. If the Court decides to grant certiorari, it would definitively decide the fate of the bill, with wide-ranging implications for future gun legislation. The Court seems poised to look disfavorably upon the ban, as it has recently trended towards expanding the right of individual gun ownership within the country.

Conclusion

These two recent pieces of legislation demonstrate the current political climate concerning gun legislation. Even in Illinois, a very liberal state with much lower rates of gun ownership than the national average, laws restricting access to guns face great legal resistance.[14] Gun rights advocates have started to rely on a sympathetic Supreme Court, whose conservative majority has consistently expanded the reach of Second Amendment rights in the modern era. However, the Court has recognized certain restrictions on gun rights, leaving room for less ambitious government regulations to pass. The success of Karina’s Bill illustrates the potential for more narrowly tailored pieces of legislation, especially when they appeal to universal moral principles as opposed to ideological values.

Notes:

1. Gramlich, John. “What the Data Says about Gun Deaths in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 5 Mar. 2025, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/. 

2. Grinshteyn, Erin, and David Hemenway. “Violent Death Rates in the US Compared to Those of the Other High-Income Countries, 2015.” Preventive Medicine 123 (June 2019): 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.026.

3. “The Public Health Approach to Prevent Gun Violence.” Center for Gun Violence Solutions. Accessed February 9, 2025. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/research-reports/the-public-health-approach-to-prevent-gun-violence.

4. U.S. Const. amend. II

5. District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

6. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

7. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. 411 (2016).

8. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).

9. Karina’s Law, H.B. 4144, 103rd Illinois General Assembly.

10. “Villanueva Passes Karina’s Law to Protect Domestic Violence Survivors.” ISDC, January 6, 2025. https://www.illinoissenatedemocrats.com/caucus-news/64-senator-celina-villanueva-news/6001-villanueva-passes-karinas-law-to-protect-domestic-violence-survivors.

11. Szalinski, Ben. “Illinois Lawmakers Advance ‘Karina’s Bill’ to Remove Guns from Domestic Violence Situations.” ABC7 Chicago, January 9, 2025. https://abc7chicago.com/post/illinois-gun-laws-lawmakers-advance-karinas-bill-remove-guns-domestic-violence-situations/15774601/.

12. Protect Illinois Communities Act, Public Act 102-1116 (2023).

13. McCracken, Heather. Gun ownership in America | rand. Accessed February 10, 2025. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html.

Bibliography:

District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 “Federal Appeals Panel Upholds Illinois Assault Weapons Ban.” CBS News. Accessed February 9, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/federal-appeals-panel-upholds-illinois-assault-weapons-ban/.

Feurer, Todd, and Darius Johnson. “Federal Judge Rules Illinois Assault Weapons Ban Unconstitutional.” CBS News, November 8, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/illinois-assault-weapons-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/.

Gramlich, John. “What the Data Says about Gun Deaths in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 5 Mar. 2025, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/. 

Grinshteyn, Erin, and David Hemenway. “Violent Death Rates in the US Compared to Those of the Other High-Income Countries, 2015.” Preventive Medicine 123 (June 2019): 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.026.

Gun policy in America: An overview | rand. Accessed February 10, 2025. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/gun-policy-in-america.html.

Karina’s Law, H.B. 4144, 103rd Illinois General AssemblyMcCracken, Heather. Gun ownership in America | rand. Accessed February 10, 2025. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 . 2009

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1

Protect Illinois Communities Act, Public Act 102-1116 (2023)

“The Public Health Approach to Prevent Gun Violence.” Center for Gun Violence Solutions. Accessed February 9, 2025. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/research-reports/the-public-health-approach-to-prevent-gun-violence.

Szalinski, Ben. “Illinois Lawmakers Advance ‘Karina’s Bill’ to Remove Guns from Domestic Violence Situations.” ABC7 Chicago, January 9, 2025. https://abc7chicago.com/post/illinois-gun-laws-lawmakers-advance-karinas-bill-remove-guns-domestic-violence-situations/15774601/.

United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S.

“Villanueva Passes Karina’s Law to Protect Domestic Violence Survivors.” ISDC, January 6, 2025. https://www.illinoissenatedemocrats.com/caucus-news/64-senator-celina-villanueva-news/6001-villanueva-passes-karinas-law-to-protect-domestic-violence-survivors.