Sara Lee Ellis

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
	Name: Sara Lee Ellis
	Court: Northern District of Illinois
Progress
	Confirmed 154 days after nomination.
	Nominated: May 6, 2013
	ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified
	Questionnaire: Questionnaire
	Hearing: June 19, 2013
	QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more)
	Reported: July 18, 2013
	Confirmed: October 7, 2013
	Vote: Voice

Sara Lee Ellis is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.She served as counsel at the law firm of Schiff Hardin LLP in Chicago prior to her confirmation. On May 6, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Ellis to the court to fill the vacancy left by Joan B. Gottschall. She was confirmed on October 7, 2013.^[1]^[2]

Early life and education

Ellis earned her B.A. from Indiana University in 1991. She went on to attend Loyola University Chicago School of Law, earning her J.D. 1994.^[2]

Professional career

2007-2013: Counsel, Schiff Hardin LLP
2004-2007: Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Chicago Department of Law
2000-2004: Attorney, Stetler, Duffy & Rotert, Ltd.
1994-1999: Staff Attorney, Federal Defender Program^[2]

Judicial career

Northern District of Illinois

On May 6, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Sara Lee Ellis to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to fill the vacancy left by Joan B. Gottschall.^[3] Obama commented on the nominations:

“

I am honored to put forward these highly qualified candidates for the federal bench. They will be distinguished public servants and valuable additions to the United States District Court.^[2]^[4]

”

Ellis was rated Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified by the American Bar Association. She had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 19, 2013 and you can find her Committee Questionnaire available here.^[5]

On October 7, 2013, Ellis was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on a voice vote. Senator Dick Durbin had this to say about the confirmation

“

Both Sara Ellis and Colin Bruce have the experience, qualifications, and integrity to be excellent federal judges... I was proud to recommend them both to President Obama for consideration and I am pleased that Senator Mark Kirk joined me in supporting these nominees. I am glad the Senate has confirmed them today and I look forward to seeing them serve with distinction on the federal bench.^[1]^[4]

”

Noteworthy cases

Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker (2020)

See also: Lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2021

Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker: On June 15, 2020, the Illinois Republican Party, together with three local Republican groups, filed suit against Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In their complaint, Republicans argued that their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated because, "unlike churches, political parties are barred from gathering in groups greater than 10 under the Governor’s Executive Order 2020-38." Republicans said that "[w]hen the state grants access to one set of speakers, it must give equal access and treatment to all speakers of a similar character," contrasting their treatment to both that of churches and protesters. They have asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing Executive Order 2020-38 against political parties. Pritzker’s spokeswoman, Jordan Abudayyeh, said, "[As] the Republicans who attended protests against the public health guidance are well aware, the State has never prevented people from exercising their First Amendment rights."^[6]^[7]

On July 2, 2020, Judge Sara Lee Ellis, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, denied Republicans' motion for an injunction against the gathering-size restriction (which was subsequently raised to 50 people). Republicans appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On Sept. 3, a three-judge panel rejected the appeal, finding that precedent "does not compel the Governor to treat all gatherings alike." The panel further concluded that "free exercise of religion enjoys express constitutional protection, and the Governor was entitled to carve out some room for religion, even while he declined to do so for other activities." Finally, the court emphasized that re-subjecting religious gatherings to the mandatory cap would "leave the Republicans no better off than they are today." Chief Judge Diane Wood and Judges Amy St. Eve and Amy Coney Barrett sat on the panel and were unanimous in their decision.^[8]^[9]

Daniel Suhr, counsel for the Republican Party, said in a statement, "We are disappointed in the decision, respectfully disagree with it, and are considering our options."^[10]