UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ILLINOIS LEAGUE OF ADVOCATES

FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY,

DISABLED, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN

SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13 C 1300

Judge Marvin E. Aspen

Order on Preliminary Injunction (pdf)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Court Judge:

Plaintiffs in this action have challenged Defendants' decisions to close a state-operated institution for the developmentally disabled and to assess its residents for potential transfers into community living arrangements. Plaintiffs contend that this conduct constitutes disability discrimination in violation of federal law, denies Plaintiffs and the purported class members equal protection, and deprives them of choice as required by the Medicaid Act. In early January 2014, a three-day preliminary injunction hearing in this matter was conducted. The parties have since submitted their post-hearing briefs, as well as their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT1

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a)(2) and 65, we begin with a recitation of the facts pertinent to our analysis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2), 65. We rely on the parties' Stipulation of Facts (Dkt. No. 348), their proposed findings, the witnesses' written direct testimony submitted prior to the hearing, the transcripts of hearing testimony, the parties' exhibits, and, where necessary, our assessment of witness credibility. We also consider the parties' pre- and post-hearing briefs (including supplemental materials), and we bear in mind our prior evidentiary rulings. (See 12/5/13 Op. (Dkt. No. 321) (resolving motions in limine).) In large part, the critical facts are undisputed.

1 We assume familiarity with the extensive procedural background of this case.

  1. The Parties and Residents of Murray
  2. The Division and the Rebalancing Initiative
  3. The ACCT Process
  4. Plaintiffs' Concerns About Guardian Consent
  5. Concerns About Services Provided In CILAs
  6. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
  7. Irreparable Harm
  8. Balancing of Interests