An appeals court weighs Chicago's Welcoming City ordinance. At City Hall, bills to repeal or narrow it have sat in committee since 2023

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit heard arguments Thursday on whether to revive the Trump administration's lawsuit against Chicago's Welcoming City ordinance and similar Illinois and Cook County laws. The panel did not rule and gave no sign of when it would, WTTW reported.

Why it matters: the Welcoming City ordinance, Chapter 2-173 of the Municipal Code, limits how City agencies, including the police, can help federal civil immigration enforcement, such as by holding people on immigration detainers or sharing information about a person's immigration status. If the lawsuit is revived and the government eventually wins, parts of that local law could be struck down.

What happened in court

U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins dismissed the lawsuit in July 2025. She found the federal government had not shown that federal immigration law requires state and local police to act on detainers, which she treated as requests rather than orders. The government appealed.

At Thursday's hourlong hearing at the Dirksen Federal Building, a Justice Department attorney argued that the local laws force federal agents to make arrests on the street instead of taking people directly from local custody, according to WTTW and a summary by Hoodline. Illinois' deputy solicitor general argued that federal law does not require a state to lend its police to immigration enforcement. Judges questioned whether states have any duty to cooperate at all, the reports said. Attorneys for Cook County and the City were also questioned, WTTW reported.

The laws at issue include the City ordinance, the Illinois TRUST Act and Way Forward Act, and a Cook County ordinance on detainers.

What our records add

Repeal bills that never moved. On Nov. 7, 2023, seven ordinances to repeal the Welcoming City ordinance "in its entirety" were introduced, each under the name of a different alderperson: Silvana Tabares (23rd), Brendan Reilly (42nd), Anthony Beale (9th), Marty Quinn (13th), Nicholas Sposato (38th), Raymond Lopez (15th) and Anthony Napolitano (41st). They were sent to four different committees. All seven are still listed as referred, almost three years later; for example, Reilly's is in the Committee on Public Safety.

A narrower change, also stuck. In September 2023, Lopez introduced O2023-0004222, which would let City agencies work with federal immigration officers on people arrested for or convicted of crimes. It has 15 co-sponsors. It went to the Committee on Committees and Rules after two committees claimed it. When Lopez used Council Rule 41 to demand a report, Rules Chair Michelle Harris (8th) answered in May 2024 that it had not been discussed "due to departmental requests" for review first, according to her letter in the Clerk's file. No hearing has been held since.

What has passed instead. The Council's recent immigration votes have gone the other way:

• In September, it passed SO2025-0021035, sponsored by Ald. Daniel La Spata (1st), requiring City contractors to disclose work for civil immigration enforcement. The vote was 50 to 0.
• In July, it put an advisory question on Tuesday's ballot asking whether the City should seek compensation from the federal government for the costs of last year's enforcement operations. It passed 46 to 1. We explained the three ballot questions here.
• Mayor Brandon Johnson has also used executive orders. One, filed with the Council in October 2025, bars the use of City parking lots, vacant lots and garages as staging areas for civil immigration enforcement. Another, filed in February, sets Police Department procedures for responding to federal enforcement operations.

At the budget hearings. The same day as the court hearing, Ald. Andre Vasquez (40th) asked the City's chief information officer how the City keeps residents' data, including license plate reader data, from being misused by federal authorities "when we are a welcoming city" (watch). Chief Information Officer Nick Lucius said every data agreement starts from a standard data protection template written with the Law Department, and referred legal questions about outside requests to that department.

What's next

• The 7th Circuit panel can rule at any time. Either side could then ask the full court or the U.S. Supreme Court to step in.
• If the dismissal stands, the ordinance stays as written. If the case is revived, it goes back to the district court.
• In the Council, any of the eight pending ordinances would need a committee hearing and vote before the full Council could take it up. None is on a posted agenda.

The ordinance's full text is in Chapter 2-173 of the Municipal Code.

Sources: WTTW: Federal judge upholds Chicago, Cook County and Illinois protections (July 2025).