Despite years of litigation over constitutionally deficient healthcare in Illinois prisons, meaningful reform has yet to materialize for thousands of incarcerated individuals at the center of Lippert v. Hughes. Time is of the essence: a mandated consent decree — entered in 2019 — is set to expire in May 2029. A Sidley pro bono team, working as appellate counsel alongside the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois, the Uptown People’s Law Center, and Dentons, recently secured a decisive appellate victory preserving the consent decree and strengthening the class’s ability to hold the Illinois Department of Corrections accountable to its reform commitments.
For Emma LaBounty, a Sidley associate in the firm’s Commercial Litigation and Disputes practice in Chicago, the litigation is about urgently needed reform to the system. “This case is about getting the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) to a place where they’re providing appropriate medical and dental care, as they promised to do in the decree. The class members’ conditions, while they are serious, can, in many cases, be managed well with medication or other treatments that should be readily available,” she said.
“The state voluntarily agreed to a pathway to improving IDOC’s healthcare system more than seven years ago,” explained Samantha Reed, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Illinois. “This includes implementing basic elements of a functioning healthcare system like an electronic medical record and having enough staff to provide care. It is critical that we be able to hold them to their promises.”
Originally filed as a single-plaintiff lawsuit in 2010, Lippert v. Hughes evolved into a class action in 2017. As part of a settlement in 2019, the Illinois Department of Corrections agreed to a consent decree, which included court monitoring of reforms to the medical and dental care provided to thousands of prisoners.
Yet, the issues outlined in the consent decree persist — from staffing shortages and sanitation deficiencies, to a lack of basic infrastructure, including electronic health records. Many patients rely on thousands of pages of handwritten medical histories, and providers are unable to track and coordinate diagnoses or treatment methods.
“The prison system controls everything about their life, including what medical care they have access to, and whether or when they see a nurse or doctor,” said Leslie Kuhn-Thayer, pro bono counsel in Chicago, who coordinates the firm’s prisoners’ rights work.
Multiple expert reports, including a mortality review, have shed light on the realities of the prison healthcare system. “There are too many people dying in Illinois prisons for reasons that they shouldn’t be,” said LaBounty.
When LaBounty prepared to argue the appeal at the Seventh Circuit in November 2025, she knew the panel of judges would not be announced until the morning of the argument. So she practiced not for a specific audience, but for the entire court — including the judge she had clerked for after law school, who was ultimately the sitting judge that day. “It was wonderful to get to argue in front of Judge Easterbrook.”
The goal was not to relitigate the case, said LaBounty, but to protect the framework that allows reform efforts to continue. “These clients have a lot on the line. They’ve been involved in this litigation for many years.”
But relief for the class hinges on the terms of the consent decree, and the appellate victory is a significant step forward, Kuhn-Thayer said. “Ensuring the consent decree is enforceable is hugely important.”
“The appellate victory ensures that the implementation plan will remain in place to guide IDOC’s actions and provides a roadmap for achieving the systemic reforms,” Reed said.
For LaBounty, the Lippert matter came at an important moment in her career. After clerking for Judge Easterbrook, she worked as a Public Interest Law Initiative (PILI) fellow at the ACLU of Illinois, where she was assigned to the Lippert team. “I got to dive in as far as developing skills around the different aspects of motion practice and legal questions that were a part of that work in the district court.”
The ACLU benefitted greatly from Emma’s contributions. “I was lucky enough to be assigned as Emma’s supervisor during her time at ACLU,” Reed said. “I could tell right away that she was someone who would really dig into any issue, examining it from all angles and leaving no stone unturned. She was an asset to our team during her fellowship.”
LaBounty brought the Lippert appeal to Sidley when she joined the firm as an associate in 2024, and has continued to hone her skills on the case working closely with both Kuhn-Thayer and Sidley partner Tacy Flint, co-leader of the firm’s Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies practice. “I greatly appreciate Tacy’s guidance and the opportunity to learn from her especially with regard to appellate work,” LaBounty said.
Appellate work, particularly prisoners’ rights litigation, is complex both constitutionally and procedurally, she said, adding that she is fortunate to be surrounded by colleagues at Sidley who both prioritize and excel at pro bono work.
“Being able to engage with public service and public interest causes while pursuing my legal career is very important to me.”
Her Sidley teammates were instrumental in helping her build and deliver a strong appellate argument before the Seventh Circuit in the Lippert case, she said. “Everyone was incredibly generous with their time and thoughts as I was working through the law in this case. It doesn’t feel exceptional when it’s happening, but it is.”
