Mathews v IL - Racial impact of gun violence

[Billy Bob]

I wonder which gun control group has been bankrolling this case? I kind of doubt that Shanice Mathews is footing the bill.

[Euler]

Brady is funding the lawsuit.

It's essentially the same as SAF/FPC/GOA funding a pro-2A suit, just for the anti-2A side.

[Euler]

On August 4 in appellate court, the court ordered the appeal and cross-appeal consolidated. It set the schedule as follows:

08/25: plaintiff's appeal opening brief due
09/24: defendants' response brief and cross-appeal opening brief due
10/24: plaintiff's reply brief and cross-appeal response brief due
11/14: defendants' cross-appeal reply brief due

On August 5, plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time to file her opening brief.

On August 6, the court granted the motion and amended the schedule as follows:

10/06: plaintiff's appeal opening brief due
11/05: defendants' response brief and cross-appeal opening brief due
12/05: plaintiff's reply brief and cross-appeal response brief due
12/29: defendants' cross-appeal reply brief due

[TomKoz]

On 6/26/2024 at 7:50 AM, TomKoz said:

Original case filed October 2018 !!!!!

^^^^ Almost 7 years !!!

THIS should be Unconstitutional !!

[Euler]

On October 6, plaintiff filed her cross-appellant brief, but asked for this case to be stayed pending certiorari from the Illinois Supreme Court on the following IL state law questions:

1. Whether the Defendant Appellee Illinois State Police ("ISP") has authority under 430 ILCS 68/5-85 of the Firearm Dealer License Certification Act ("FDLCA") and by virtue of the ISP's general authority under the Illinois State Police Law, 20 ILCS 2605-16, to require Cook County dealers seeking annual renewal of their licenses by ISP to produce digital or other records that show such dealers are following responsible business practices at the time of the sale of their firearms.

2. Whether the ISP has the authority under the 430 ILCS 68/5-85, FDLCA, to deny renewal of the licenses of those Cook County dealers who fail or refuse to follow responsible business practices in which they are annually trained for at least two hours by ISP each year under 430 ILCS 68/5-30 or who fail or refuse to follow such responsible business practices required by the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, codified at 815 ILCS 505/2DDDD.

[Euler]

On October 16, IL opposed plaintiff's motion for certiorari from the IL state supreme court.

On October 17, the 7th Circuit Court referred the issue of state certiorari to a merits panel.

[Euler]

On October 28, defendants asked to extend the November 11 deadline for their response and cross-appeal opening. The court granted it. The remaining schedule, as amended, is:

2025
12/05: defendants' response brief and cross-appeal opening brief due

2026
01/05: plaintiff's reply brief and cross-appeal response brief due
01/20: defendants' cross-appeal reply brief due

Edited November 1, 2025 at 02:27 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On November 26, defendants asked to extend the December 5 deadline for their response and cross-appeal opening. The court granted it. The remaining schedule, as amended, is:

2026
01/05: defendants' response brief and cross-appeal opening brief due
02/04: plaintiff's reply brief and cross-appeal response brief due
02/25: defendants' cross-appeal reply brief due

[Euler]

On December 29 in appellate court, defendants asked again to extend the deadline to file a response and cross-appeal opening.

On December 31, the court granted the extension. The remaining schedule is:

02/04: defendants' response brief and cross-appeal opening brief due
03/06: plaintiff's reply brief and cross-appeal response brief due
03/27: defendants' cross-appeal reply brief due

[Euler]

On January 27 in appellate court, defendants asked again again to extend the deadline to file a response and cross-appeal opening.

[TomKoz]

On 1/30/2026 at 11:43 PM, Euler said:

On January 27 in appellate court, defendants asked again again to extend the deadline to file a response and cross-appeal opening.

 Hmmm 🤔.   Can all of these delays (requested and subsequently granted “extensions) be a just cause for a Civil Rights violation suit ?

[Euler]

No.

[Euler]

On January 30 in appellate court, the court granted the extension. The remaining schedule is:

03/06: defendants' response brief and cross-appeal opening brief due
04/06: plaintiff's reply brief and cross-appeal response brief due
04/27: defendants' cross-appeal reply brief due

[ragsbo]

Here is probably a stupid question,  but they are always requesting extensions instead of meeting the deadline dates set by the court, and it seems they always get them. Why????? Why does the court allow them to drag it out so long? Will it be used against the ruling on appeal if they asked for more time and didn't get it?? Claiming they didn't get enough time to properly prepare? There should at least be a limit to the extensions able to be gotten. 

[Euler]

On March 6 in appellate court, the government filed its briefs.

Edited March 11, 2026 at 01:21 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On March 31 in appellate court, Mathews asked to extend the deadline her briefs.

On April 1, the court granted the extension and set the following schedule:

05/04: plaintiff's reply brief and cross-appeal response brief due
05/26: defendants' cross-appeal reply brief due

[Euler]

On May 4, Mathews filed her brief.

[Euler]

On May 19 in appellate court, IL asked for an extension to file its brief.

On May 21, the court extended the due date to June 16.