Chicago’s War on Religious Freedom: ACLJ Files Major Lawsuit To Stop Unconstitutional Arrests of Christian Preachers

The ACLJ has just taken a major step in the fight for religious liberty by filing a lawsuit against the city of Chicago for the unconstitutional arrests of Christian street preachers. This lawsuit, filed today, seeks justice for Brett Raio and his two friends, Reetik and Perez, who were all wrongfully arrested for nothing more than sharing the Gospel in public.

This case is about more than just one incident. It reveals a troubling pattern of targeted enforcement against Christians – and preachers in particular – exercising their First Amendment rights.

Chicago’s Unconstitutional Crackdown on Free Speech

As we previously reported, Brett Raio was arrested and charged for preaching in a public space near Millennium Park. His case was dismissed before trial after we presented video evidence proving his innocence. However, just days later, Chicago police arrested Reetik and Perez at the very same location for the same baseless charges. This is no coincidence. It is a deliberate effort to silence religious expression.

Chicago has adopted an unconstitutional policy of targeting and arresting street preachers who use amplification, regardless of whether they actually violate any noise ordinance. Chicago law only requires permits for amplification that exceeds conversational levels at 100 feet away, yet police are arresting preachers who use any amplification at all. They are not taking any measures to determine if the speech actually violates the noise ordinance; they are just pulling up in their squad cars and immediately arresting the preachers.

This has all the markings of unconstitutional targeting of preachers, displaying an unlawful anti-Christian animus. And with today’s lawsuit, we are taking major legal action to fight back.

Instead of learning from their mistakes, Chicago authorities have doubled down on their unconstitutional actions. That’s why we are suing. The government cannot selectively enforce laws to suppress speech it disfavors – all Americans are protected by the First Amendment.

Our Lawsuit Against Chicago

Today’s lawsuit argues that the city of Chicago and its police officers violated the constitutional rights of Brett, Reetik, and Perez by unlawfully silencing their speech, targeting them for their religious message, and infringing on their fundamental freedoms. The civil rights lawsuit also seeks damages for the harm they suffered and emotional distress from being unlawfully arrested and having their First Amendment rights violated. It also argues that Chicago’s policy violates Illinois’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a significant burden on our clients’ religious exercise. Remember, Reetik and Perez were held in jail for over seven hours for nothing more than preaching!

While our clients’ story is the focus of our lawsuit, this is about more than Brett, Reetik, and Perez. If Chicago gets away with this blatant disregard for the Constitution, what’s stopping them from doing the same to others? Unfortunately, we know that this policy in Chicago goes well beyond these incidents and is part of a far-reaching policy at one of the busiest public sites in the city. Free speech is not a privilege granted by the government – it is a God-given right enshrined in our Constitution. Chicago can’t harass and chase away these brave evangelists, and the ACLJ is working to ensure that their voices are heard.

The Fight for Religious Freedom Continues

We will not stand by while cities trample the rights of Christians. This lawsuit is the first step in holding Chicago accountable, but we know the fight is far from over. The ACLJ is committed to taking this case as far as necessary to ensure that no one else faces wrongful arrest simply for sharing their faith. We also continue to represent Reetik and Perez as they face criminal charges for exercising their faith, and we are calling on street preachers around the country: If your rights are violated, know we will stand with you.

By challenging what appears to be a systematic effort to silence street preachers through misapplication of noise ordinances, this case stands for the important principle that religious speech deserves the same robust protections as other forms of expression in traditional public forums. The lawsuit highlights how selective enforcement of regulations – applying stricter standards to religious speakers than to ambient city noise – serves as viewpoint discrimination, undermining core constitutional principles.

Cities have legitimate interests in regulating public spaces, but those regulations must be applied neutrally and with proper respect for constitutional rights. The particularly troubling escalation pattern shown here – where enforcement intensified after a prior citation was dismissed in court – suggests potential retaliatory motivation that strikes at the heart of First Amendment protections. Government officials cannot use technical regulations as pretexts to silence disfavored speech, especially when that speech is religious in nature and occurs in spaces traditionally reserved for public discourse.

Stay tuned for further updates, and join us in prayer as we continue this critical legal battle to defend religious liberty in America.