The Illinois Supreme Court is to hear arguments on Thursday over whether serious Chicago police disciplinary cases can be decided in private arbitration rather than at public hearings.
The case, being heard in Springfield at 9am on September 24, centres on 27 officers facing pending disciplinary charges. They have opted for arbitration instead of proceedings before the Chicago Police Board, a move that could prevent the public from observing the cases.
The dispute is formally listed as Chicago John Dineen Lodge No. 7 v the City of Chicago, docket number 132241, on the Illinois Supreme Court’s September 2026 term. The hearing is also due to be streamed online. ([illinoiscourts.gov](https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/supreme-court/docket/?utm_source=openai))
Seven of the officers are accused of using deadly force. Among them is Eric Stillman, who shot and killed 13-year-old Adam Toledo during a foot chase in Chicago in March 2021.
Toledo’s disciplinary case has remained unresolved while the wider legal challenge moves through the courts. The state’s attorney’s office declined to bring criminal charges against Stillman, while Chicago’s civilian police watchdog recommended that he be dismissed.
Chicago police arbitration dispute
The legal battle began after an arbitrator ruled that Illinois labour law allowed police union members to take serious disciplinary cases to private arbitration. The Chicago City Council rejected that arrangement, prompting litigation between the city and the Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7.
Lower courts ruled that hearings in the most serious cases should remain open to the public, although officers could continue to be paid while their cases were pending. The police union appealed, arguing that state law gives officers the right to have disciplinary disputes decided by an arbitrator.
The city and Illinois attorney general’s office have warned that closed hearings could weaken police reforms and further damage public confidence in the Chicago Police Department. They argue that transparency is particularly important in cases involving alleged excessive or deadly force.
The union maintains that arbitration is permitted under the state’s public labour laws and says officers should be able to use the same process available in other disciplinary disputes.
Craig Futterman, a clinical professor of law at the University of Chicago, said the ruling could determine whether the public is able to scrutinise how the most serious misconduct allegations are handled.
He said public trust in policing depended on “honesty, transparency” and accountability, adding that the decision would have implications for the future of policing in Chicago.
Even after the Supreme Court delivers its ruling, the city and the union are expected to face further work over how the disciplinary process should operate. A final decision in the individual cases, including the proceedings involving Stillman, could therefore remain some way off.
