We have repeatedly-noted that the government missed the three year statute of limitations long ago — so any purported attempt to intervene is time barred. [Similarly, the crisis actors also all missed that deadline — so there is a pending motion to dismiss them, as well — fully briefed.]

But all that said, I do love the two additional grounds cited here tonight by my city’s lawfirms — see below:

…First, dismissal of the Government’s Fair Housing Act claim is warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Government fails to plausibly allege that Evanston is subject to the provision it invokes. The Government offers nothing beyond an insufficient recitation of the statutory text that Evanston is in the “business” of real estate-related transactions. However, Section 3605 of the Fair Housing Act ONLY reaches persons and entities “whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions,” 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a), and courts in this District have only it to lenders, brokers, and appraisers, not to a municipality. See Davis v. Fenton, 26 F.Supp. 3d 727, 741 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Because the provision does not apply to Evanston, the claim should be dismissed….

[D]ismissal of the Government’s Equal Protection Clause claim is [also] proper under Rule 12(b)(1) because the Government lacks standing to assert the claim. Because the Government seeks relief that is broader than and different from the relief Plaintiffs seek, including money damages, civil penalties, and an order halting the Program, it must establish its own Article III standing. See Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U.S. 433, 439–40 (2017). However, it has not done so. Instead, the Government’s Complaint alleges that Evanston denied equal treatment to other “persons,” but not to the Government itself, and the Government has no equal protection rights of its own. (Dkt. 70, Gov’t Compl. ¶ 40). See also Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255, 294 (2023). Nor does 42 U.S.C. §2000h-2 fill that gap, because that statute permits the Attorney General to intervene in an existing equal protection case, but it does not create a cause of action, and it does not dispense with Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement….

Well done, my team. Stick that in your pipe — and smoke it, Andrew Boutros. Heh.

नमस्ते