1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 1:20-cv-03489

Judge Sara L. Ellis

v. 

J.B. PRITZKER, as Governor, EXPEDITED MOTION FOR AN

INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

Defendant.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(d), Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to grant 

an injunction pending appeal. Granting an injunction pending an appeal is 

governed by familiar factors: 

If an appeal has no merit at all, an injunction pending the appeal 

should of course be denied.” [Cavel Int’l, Inc. v. Madigan, 500 F.3d 544, 

547 (7th Cir. 2007)]. However, as long as the Union’s appeal has 

“some” merit, id., this court must consider whether the Union has met 

its burden of demonstrating “[1] that it has a significant probability of 

success on the merits; [2] that it will face irreparable harm absent a 

stay; and [3] that a stay will not injure the opposing party and will be 

in the public interest.” Hinrichs v. Bosma, 440 F.3d 393, 396 (7th Cir. 

2006). The court applies a “sliding scale” approach to this balancing 

test, “weighting harm to a party by the merit of his case.” Cavel Int’l, 

500 F.3d at 547. The greater the harm, the less need to demonstrate a 

strong likelihood of success on the merits. Thomas v. City of Evanston, 

636 F. Supp. 587, 591 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (Aspen, J.).

Doe v. Cook Cty., No. 99 C 3945, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117086, at *4-5 (N.D. Ill. 

Nov. 3, 2010).

Case: 1:20-cv-03489 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/02/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:159
2

Plaintiffs believe they have a significant probability of success on the merits, for the 

reasons given in their previous briefing (see Dkt. 3 & 11). The Will County 

Republican Central Committee also will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction 

does not issue because there will be no opportunity to replicate the unique 

experience of a Fourth of July event with fireworks during the summer preceding 

the 2020 presidential election. And the Committee has pledged to observe 

appropriate precautions to maintain a safe environment for its members and 

guests, such that the likelihood of harm at this one specific event is low. See Dkt. 3, 

Ex. 3, ¶ 7 (affidavit of George Pearson, Will County Committee chairman). 

However, if this Court concludes the likelihood of success on the merits and balance 

of harms weigh against an injunction pending appeal, for the same reasons as its 

decision on the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction, the Plaintiffs request that the Court issue its denial immediately so they 

may expeditiously seek an injunction pending appeal from the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the 7th Circuit. See Fed. R. App. Pro. 8(a). See also 7TH CIR.

PRACTITIONER’S HANDBOOK FOR APPEALS at 89 (2019 Ed.) (“The party seeking a stay

ordinarily must file the motion in the district court first. Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1). The

court of appeals rarely will consider a motion for stay in the first instance.”). 

Plaintiffs ask that the Court take this action immediately so they may appeal 

expeditiously. Defendant would not be prejudiced by such a decision, because such a 

denial would be to his advantage at the trial court and would be based on the 

arguments he has successfully made in the Court’s original decision on the TRO/PI.

Case: 1:20-cv-03489 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/02/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:160
3

Dated: July 2, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 

ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY, 

ET AL.

 By: /s/ Daniel R. Suhr

Daniel R. Suhr

Jeffrey M. Schwab 

Liberty Justice Center

190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1500

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Telephone (312) 263-7668

dsuhr@libertyjusticecenter.org 

jschwab@libertyjusticecenter.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Served electronically on counsel for the Governor via email. /s/ Daniel Suhr

Case: 1:20-cv-03489 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/02/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:161