Chicago Appleseed and Chicago Council of Lawyers have separately joined amicus briefs in 01-24-0875, an appeal by the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 7, seeking to reverse a trial court ruling that rejected an arbitrator’s ruling which allowed Chicago police officers who are accused of serious misconduct—that which risks firing or suspension for more than a year—to have disciplinary hearings before an arbitrator behind closed doors, rather than in public before the Police Board. The arbitrator’s ruling came during contract negotiations with the FOP in 2023. Chicago Appleseed joined a brief submitted by a coalition whose members include good government groups with in-depth knowledge of the harms resulting from the absence of police transparency and accountability. CCL joined a brief filed by academics and policy groups for police accountability. Although there are several issues raised in the case, the amicus briefs focus on the importance of public oversight in the police disciplinary process.
In December 2023 and again in January 2024, the City Council voted to reject the arbitrator’s ruling. The City Council’s vote affirmed a commitment to accountability and transparency for the Chicago police department. FOP sued in the Circuit Court, asking for immediate enforcement of the arbitrator’s ruling and for a temporary restraining order to suspend more than two dozen pending Police Board cases until they could go forward in private arbitration, rather than publicly before the Board.
In March, the Circuit Court ruled that officers facing serious misconduct charges may indeed have their hearing before an arbitrator instead of the Chicago Police Board, but that the hearings must be open to the public. The Circuit Court found it “clear that accountability and transparency as it related to the CPD is a well-defined and dominant public policy of the State of Illinois”.
The court’s ruling referenced the Consent Decree, which requires the City of Chicago to increase and promote transparency in the matter of police accountability, including facilitating meaningful community participation in accountability systems. Meaningful community participation extends beyond the complaint process, but it has a particularly important role in the oversight of serious discipline cases, which have never been subject to anything other than a public process. The court could not find evidence that public arbitration would harm the integrity of the process.
Police occupy a position in government and society that is especially sensitive to public trust and oversight, not simply because police cannot function without cooperation from the public, or because police can detain and arrest people, but because they can—and do—use significant and even lethal force against them.
The FOP appealed that ruling to the First District, and Friday, the First District Appellate Court upheld the Circuit Court ruling that private arbitration hearings for the most serious misconduct cases violate Illinois public policy and do not serve the interests of transparency.
Chicago Appleseed and CCL were proud to join the appeal as organizations with a strong interest in the accountability of police disciplinary systems. We appreciate the court’s ruling in this matter, which supports the long process of reform for policing in Chicago.
The amicus briefs joined by Chicago Appleseed and CCL argue in support of the Circuit Court ruling from the understanding that essential trust in policing requires effective and transparent disciplinary systems for police misconduct. The Chicago Police Department has struggled historically to create trust by maintaining open and effective police disciplinary systems, and we have long advocated for reform through oversight and community engagement.
The community brief, joined by Chicago Appleseed, frames its argument in the context of high-profile policy shootings, racially-targeted use of force, and prior attempts to bring oversight and reform to the Chicago Police Department, such as through the Consent Decree. The academic brief joined by the CCL positions its argument in the role of transparency in Illinois public policy and the failures of private arbitration to create effective discipline for officers who do the most harm. Both briefs note how secrecy in disciplinary proceedings undermines accountability and trust in policing overall.
Data from more than 600 arbitration awards in police disciplinary proceedings shows that arbitrators overturned disciplinary decisions and reduced discipline in 52% of cases, and reduced the length of suspensions by nearly 50%. Because police departments and individual officers are rarely held accountable in civil or criminal lawsuits, administrative disciplinary hearings assume a larger role in public oversight.
The First District issued its ruling on August 8, 2025.
Post by Elizabeth Monkus, Staff Attorney