Pritzker says he's undecided about testifying before Congressional panel
CHICAGO (WGN) — Gov. JB Pritzker said Monday that he's not made up his mind whether he'll accept an invitation to testify before a Congressional panel about the state's sanctuary laws.
'Part of it is scheduling. Part of it is just a consideration of how beneficial it'll be to help people to understand the laws — the difference between the federal laws and the state laws — and what we're aiming at here in Illinois (and) how we might convey that best,' he said during a press event at RR Trade School in Melrose Park to announce new grant recipients from the Illinois Works Pre-Apprenticeship Program.
The US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform requested testimony from the Illinois Democrat, as well as from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walkz and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, on May 15.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson testified before the same committee last month. Pritzker said he didn't that as particularly productive and felt committee members are just looking for what he called 'a social media moment.' A spokesperson from his office dubbed the invitation 'another partisan dog and pony show.'
The invitation came on the same day President Donald Trump said his administration was taking efforts to withhold federal funding from from cities and states with policies that limit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities on some immigration matters.
Chicago's policy has been in place, in some form, for 40 years. In 2017, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner signed a bill which barred police from arresting anyone solely due to their immigration status. Pritzker signed further legislation in 2021 with additional protections.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
21 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump Polls Best on...Immigration
The Left is going to be furious over the latest polling on immigration… I'm Tomi Lahren, more next. By the looks of the overtaken streets in deep blue cities like LA, Chicago and New York, you may be tempted to think the president is underwater on his handling of illegal immigration…but NOPE! Actually, according to recent polling by CBS/YouGov 54% of US adults approve of the deportation effort compared to 46% who disapprove of it. This survey was conducted prior to the LA raids and riots but I'd venture to guess after looking at the absolute anarchy in the streets, foreign flags, and utter disregard for the rule of law, the approval numbers might actually tick UP! Of all the measures, President Trump polls BEST on immigration! This polling shouldn't be surprising, Donald Trump RAN on, and I argue, WON on immigration and mass deportations. He promised the largest mass deportation effort in American history to correct the Biden open border invasion and now he's following through. Democrats would be wise to adjust their radical open border views but I won't count on that one! I'm Tomi Lahren and you watch my show 'Tomi Lahren is Fearless' at Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Returned Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia arraigned on federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadorian migrant who was erroneously deported to El Salvador before being returned to the U.S. to face federal prosecution last week, was arraigned Friday in Nashville on human trafficking and conspiracy charges. Abrego Garcia is expected to enter a plea as he faces charges for the transport of undocumented migrants, and for conspiring with others to do so, that stem from a 2022 traffic stop. The criminal case against Abrego Garcia, an alleged MS-13 member, comes after a high-profile, protracted legal fight over his deportation and the Trump administration's efforts to delay his return to the U.S., even after the Supreme Court ordered the administration to "facilitate" his release earlier this year. His case has become a national flashpoint in the broader fight over Trump's hard-line immigration policies in his second White House term. In a court filing Wednesday night, lawyers for Abrego Garcia urged U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Holmes in Tennessee to release their client from custody while awaiting trial, arguing that the government's grounds for a detention hearing – and his alleged status as an MS-13 gang member – are meritless. "Mr. Abrego Garcia asks the Court for what he has been denied the past several months – due process," his lawyers said, adding that there is no evidence their client is a flight risk, or that he has "systematically engaged in international travel in the recent past." Federal prosecutors disputed that and have urged the judge to keep him in custody, saying in a filing of their own that Abrego Garcia "would have enormous reason to flee" if he were not immediately detained by ICE. Court documents show the Justice Department filed the charges against Abrego Garcia on May 21– prompting a flurry of questions as to when the investigation and impaneling of a grand jury would have taken place. Abrego Garcia's family sued the Trump administration in March after the Salvadoran man, who entered the country illegally around 2012 and was living in Maryland, was abruptly deported to El Salvador in March. An immigration judge had ruled in 2019 that he could be deported, just not to El Salvador. Upon being returned to the U.S. last week, Abrego Garcia was immediately sent to Tennessee to face federal charges related to transporting undocumented immigrants. This is a developing news story. Check back for updates.
