⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Seventh Circuit hears Safari Childcare's challenge to a judgment for Illinois child-welfare employees. Safari and its owner ran a chain of day-care centers that came under repeated licensing investigations and enforcement. They say regulators singled them out for harsher treatment than comparable centers and retaliated after staff called the police or sought help from legislators. They point to hostile internal emails as evidence that officials were working together against the business. The employees defend their actions as legitimate responses to licensing violations, not punishment for complaints. Safari brought equal-protection, First Amendment retaliation, and civil-conspiracy claims. The district court ruled for the employees without a trial. It first rejected the retaliation and conspiracy claims, while giving Safari another chance to present its equal-protection evidence. In the final ruling, the judge struck Safari's additional factual statement for failing to follow local rules for organizing facts and supporting evidence. The court also found no adequate comparison with similarly situated day-care centers and a rational basis for the regulatory actions. Safari's lawyer will argue that genuinely disputed facts and evidence of hostility should have sent the case to a jury. The state's lawyer will defend both the procedural ruling and the lack of evidence meeting the constitutional tests. Listen for the distinction between material appearing somewhere in a large record and material properly presented for the judge to consider.

Safari Childcare v. Penny (No. 25-2467) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.