Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Illinois Migrant Council, Etc. v. Alva L. Pilliod, Etc.

548 F.2d 715

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1977-01-26
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • "Because plaintiffs have shown a specific pattern of conduct, akin to an explicit policy, they have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of future harm, justifying their request for injunctive relief."
  • “Violations of a litigant’s constitutional rights constitute ‘irreparable harm’ per se.”
  • certifying statewide class based on defendants’ alleged practices
  • order entered upon rehearing in banc
  • order entered upon hearing en bane

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Illinois Migrant Council, Etc. v. Alva L. Pilliod, Etc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
51 opinions
ILLINOIS MIGRANT COUNCIL v. PILLIOD.,548 F.2d 715(7th Cir. 1977)
ILLINOIS MIGRANT COUNCIL, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. ALVA L.
PILLIOD, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 75-2019.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Reheard In Banc January 19, 1977.
Decided January 26, 1977.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; Prentice H. Marshall, Judge.
Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, and SWYGERT, CUMMINGS, PELL, SPRECHER, TONE, BAUER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
[1] ORDER UPON REHEARING IN BANC
[2] On consideration of the arguments in banc, Chief Judge Fairchild and Judges Swygert and Cummings vote to affirm. Judges Pell, Sprecher, Tone, and Bauer vote to reverse and completely vacate the injunction of the District Court. Judge Wood votes to reverse in part and vacate paragraph (b) of the preliminary injunctionfn*so that it can be modified to prohibit an agent who does not have a belief, based on specific articulable facts, that a person he wishes to interrogate is illegally in the United States, from detaining that person by force, threat of force, or a command based on the agent's official authority, but not prohibiting the agent from questioning that person, without such detention, concerning his right to be in the United States, if the agent reasonably believes the person to be an alien. He votes to affirm the remainder of the District Court's order.

[3] Since there is a majority to vacate paragraph (b) of the preliminary injunction and remand for modification in the manner favored by Judge Wood, that part of the order of the District Court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order. The remainder of the District Court's order is affirmed by an equally divided court.Page 1277
  1. Paragraph (b) of the preliminary injunction prohibits the defendants from
    "arresting, detaining, stopping, and interrogating or otherwise interfering with plaintiffs or any person of Mexican ancestry or of a Spanish surname who is, will be or has been lawfully present in the Northern District of Illinois, unless they possess a valid warrant to search or arrest such person, have probable cause to search or arrest such person without such a warrant, or have reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts that such person is an alien unlawfully in the United States."540 F.2d 1062at 1067.
    ↩