State’s Attorney’s Office Critiques Mayor Brandon Johnson’s Immigration Order
The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office issued a scathing critique of Mayor Brandon Johnson’s executive order targeting federal immigration agents for prosecution. In a two-page memo to staff, Yvette Loizon, Chief Assistant State’s Attorney for Policy and External Affairs, dismantled key provisions of Johnson’s order, citing concerns about its impact on criminal cases and potential politicization of law enforcement decisions.
Loizon highlighted that the order could sabotage criminal cases and inject politics into law enforcement decisions. She expressed deep concern about the potential implications of the order on the prosecution of crimes committed by federal agents.
The memo raised questions about the collaboration between Johnson’s office and the State’s Attorney, with Burke publicly disputing the mayor’s claim of close cooperation in drafting the order. Johnson’s office responded by stating that they had reviewed the language with the State’s Attorney’s Chief of Policy and made edits based on feedback, but Loizon’s memo calls into question the extent of these edits.
According to the memo, Burke takes the prosecution of criminal conduct by law enforcement seriously but highlighted limitations in prosecuting federal law enforcement agents for on-duty crimes. The State’s Attorney’s Office identified critical flaws in Johnson’s directive for the Chicago Police Department to collect evidence of crimes by federal agents and refer cases for prosecution at the direction of the Mayor’s Office.
Loizon emphasized that the mayor’s office should not be involved in the criminal charging process, as it risks politicizing the decision-making process. She warned that any involvement of the mayor’s office in reviewing evidence or making charging decisions could compromise the prosecution and provide defense attorneys with grounds to argue political motivation.
Despite Johnson’s efforts to address criminal conduct by federal agents, Loizon’s memo cautioned that the executive order introduces additional hurdles to prosecution and jeopardizes the ability to secure convictions in such cases.
While the head of the local police union, John Catanzara, criticized Johnson’s order, calling it “a piece of toilet paper,” Loizon’s assessment provides a more nuanced perspective on the legal implications and challenges posed by the executive order.
Overall, the State’s Attorney’s Office’s critique raises important considerations about the intersection of politics and law enforcement in the prosecution of crimes committed by federal agents.
