McCann v. Dart
30 N.E.3d 468
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff Brian McCann, a Cook County citizen, sued Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart (in his official capacity) for mandamus and declaratory relief, alleging the sheriff refused to perform duties under federal immigration statutes and was enforcing a Cook County ordinance limiting cooperation with ICE.
- Plaintiff relied on federal immigration provisions (including 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226, 1226a, 1357(d), 1373, 1644 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.7) concerning ICE detainers and information-sharing; Cook County Ordinance No. 11-O-73 limited honoring ICE detainers and use of county resources absent reimbursement or a warrant.
- Plaintiff’s mandamus count alleged the sheriff had a duty to honor ICE detainers (hold detainees up to 48 hours) and to permit communications/exchange of immigration-status information with federal officials; he sought a writ compelling performance and a declaration that the ordinance was preempted.
- Sheriff Dart moved to dismiss under section 2-619.1, arguing (1) the sheriff could not be compelled to enforce federal immigration regulations and (2) McCann lacked standing because he alleged no injury in fact.
- The circuit court granted dismissal under section 2-619(a)(9), holding McCann lacked standing and relying on Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Authority; McCann appealed.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal because McCann’s opening brief failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (omitting statutes/ordinance text, inadequate statement of facts, lack of reasoned argument and citations), and he raised key statutory arguments for the first time in his reply brief, waiving them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCann had standing to seek mandamus/declaratory relief | McCann argued a citizen has standing to seek mandamus by alleging citizenship and a public official’s failure to perform legal duties | Dart argued McCann alleged no injury in fact or legally cognizable interest and thus lacked standing | Appeal dismissed for failure to brief properly; circuit court’s dismissal for lack of standing left intact (appellate brief struck and appeal dismissed) |
| Whether the sheriff had a ministerial duty to honor ICE detainers (hold up to 48 hours) | McCann claimed federal statutes/regulations impose such duties on local sheriffs | Dart argued he cannot be compelled to administer federal immigration regulation and the ordinances reflect permissible local policy | Not reached on merits: appellate court refused to address because of deficient briefing and waiver of issues not raised in opening brief |
| Whether federal statutes prohibit local officials from restricting communication with ICE (8 U.S.C. §§ 1373, 1644) | McCann later contended sheriff unlawfully restricted information exchange with ICE | Dart maintained local policy/ordinance and that plaintiff lacked standing to compel enforcement of federal statutes | Not reached on merits due to briefing defects and waiver; reply-brief arguments were untimely and waived |
| Whether Cook County Ordinance is preempted by federal law | McCann sought declaration the ordinance was preempted and ultra vires | Dart defended the ordinance and raised standing and justiciability defenses | Not addressed on merits; appeal dismissed for procedural briefing failures |
Key Cases Cited
- Greer v. Illinois Hous. Dev. Auth., 122 Ill. 2d 462 (court limited citizen standing absent injury-in-fact)
- Behrstock v. Ace Hose & Rubber Co., 147 Ill. App. 3d 76 (appellate deference presumption to trial court rulings)
- People ex rel. Gamber v. Board of Supervisors, 294 Ill. 579 (historical recognition of mandamus by citizens)
- People ex rel. Faulkner v. Harris, 203 Ill. 272 (mandamus as remedy to compel public officials)
- Hill v. Butler, 107 Ill. App. 3d 721 (citizen mandamus standing cases)
- People ex rel. Newdelman v. Swank, 131 Ill. App. 2d 73 (citizen’s use of mandamus)
- People ex rel. Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d 185 (mandamus is extraordinary remedy; ministerial duty requirement)