Crime & Law
Battle Over Chicago Police Discipline Heads to State Supreme Court, Sparking Debate on Serious Misconduct Hearings
The Illinois Supreme Court is set to weigh in next year on whether serious Chicago Police Department misconduct cases must be heard publicly.
This comes after the Fraternal Order of Police — Chicago’s largest police union — appealed an earlier ruling from a lower court requiring public disciplinary hearings to decide the fate of officers facing termination or suspension of at least a year.
Since police officers in Illinois don’t have the right to strike, state law gives them the option to have some discipline cases decided behind closed doors instead of through the Chicago Police Board’s public process. The board — the civilian oversight body that decides police discipline cases — has had a similar provision in its contract for decades.
However, the issue has remained contentious. In 2023, the Chicago City Council rejected a clause in the union’s agreement that would allow independent arbitrators to decide serious misconduct cases.
John Catanzara, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Chicago Lodge 7, said hearings would be more fair to officers if they happened behind closed doors.
He argued the board upheld the vast majority of officer termination recommendations in recent years, indicating an anti-police bias.
“That excessive percentage of it was, ‘You’re a dead man walking — or woman per se — with your career,’ led us to exercise that option within the contract,” Catanzara said.
The Chicago Police Board publicly hears disciplinary cases for the most serious misconduct cases — a process the city has used for more than 60 years. The state Supreme Court case puts 21 cases in limbo, as the Police Board is unable to move forward with any hearings amid the legal fight.
Kyle Cooper, president of the board, said decisions on cases aren’t affected by bias.
“I have never heard, never seen, never felt, that there was any either ‘defund the police’ sort of attitude approach to the cases, or ‘back the blue, let’s turn a blind eye to the actions,’” Cooper said. “We’re just going to decide on police officers, no matter what the facts are in a given case.”
Cooper said that a public hearing process works in the best interest of police officers, upholding transparency.
Some advocates are also raising concerns that deciding serious cases privately keeps officers from being held accountable.
“If you don’t have anything to hide, why would you want to have your cases discussed behind closed doors?” said Jasmine Smith, an organizer with the Chicago Alliance Against Racist & Political Repression.
David Melton, an attorney with the Chicago Council of Lawyers, said that before the Laquan McDonald shooting, the Police Board had a history of making decisions in favor of police officers. He argued the board is more fair after recent reforms, but the police union’s push for private arbitration could recreate an unequal playing field.
“Under the Daleys, the Police Board was known to be very favorable to officers,” Melton said. “Now that the system has been evened up so that it’s fair to both officers and victims, now the union wants to take it behind closed doors.”
Catanzara said people can still access information from arbitration proceedings through Freedom of Information Act laws.
“I’ve actually experienced these (public) hearings and they aren’t as fair as they say they are,” Catanzara said. “Arbitration is, and it is not totally private. You do get the arbitration award submitted to the labor board, which is a FOIA-able result at the end of the process.”
WTTW News invited the Chicago Police Department to join “Chicago Tonight,” but the department declined.
WTTW News coverage of policing and police reform is supported by The Joyce Foundation.
