No. 25A455

Andy H. Williams, Jr. v. City of Aurora, Illinois, et al.

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2025-10-21
Status: Application
Type: A
Tags: badges-and-incidents brady-violation due-process racial-discrimination thirteenth-amendment traffic-stop
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment DueProcess CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: N/A
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits racially discriminatory traffic enforcement as a modern badge or incident of slavery

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : To the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit: 1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, petitioner Andy Williams Jr. respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time, until Monday, December 22, 2025 as December 21, 2025 falls on a Sunday, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion on July 24, 2025. A copy of the opinion is attached. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 2. Absent an extension, a petition for a writ of certiorari would be due on October 23, 2025. See U.S.S.Ct.R. 13.1. This application is being filed more than 10 days in advance of that date, and no prior application has been made in this case. The requested extension is necessary because the issues to be presented in Petitioner’s case are complex and significant and due to Petitioner’s competing work obligations. Petitioner is also a candidate for Illinois Attorney General and petition season started on August 5, 2025, thus requiring a significant amount of time to trying to secure ballot access and traveling across the state. 3. In this case, Petitioner was acquitted of failing to come to a complete stop pertaining to an alleged traffic violation. He was, however, convicted of allegedly failing to signal 100 feet prior to turning. Despite Petitioner’s acquittal of one traffic infraction, the Petitioner was still found guilty based on the testimony of the same two officers which he was acquitted from failing to come to a complete stop. 4. Subsequent to Petitioner’s trial, the defense discovered that the prosecution had failed to disclose significant impeachment evidence pertaining to an edited video and evidence of a pretextual stop. Petitioner filed motions for new trial in the trial court, arguing that the prosecution’s suppression of evidence violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 5. Petitioner had previously filed a complaint in the district court for the Seventh Circuit alleging a prolonged stop and violations of the Fourth Amendment. The case was stayed pending the outcome of the traffic case. Plaintiff amended his complaint to include violations of the Klu Klux Klan Act 1985 (3) as well as section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment. The district Court dismissed Petitioner’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on Rooker Feldman doctrines jurisdictional bar on disturbing state court judgments. 6. Petitioner appealed arguing he was denied a due process and fair trial because the process by which the state courts reached their decisions was tainted because the defendants conspired against him as evidence of legally and logically inconsistent verdicts. Petitioner sought redress for an injury independent of the one caused (allegedly) by the state-court determination thus the claim was not barred by Rooker-Feldman. Nesses v. Shepard, 68 F.3d 1003, 1005 (7th Cir. 1995) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar plaintiff's claim "that people involved in the [state court] decision violated some independent right of his, such as the right (if it is a right) to be judged by a tribunal that is uncontaminated by politics"); Johnson y. Orr, 551 F.3d 564, 570 (7th Cir. 2008). 7. Additionally, Plaintiff argued the Thirteenth Amendment's absolute, self-executing ban on slavery and its incidents prohibits racially discriminatory traffic enforcement and prosecution as modern badges and incidents of slavery, and whether the courts below erred in dismissing such claims as “frivolous” by selectively relying on The Civil Rights Cases (1883) while disregarding Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 USS. 409 (1968) 8. Petitioner competing work obligations and his campaign schedule limited his ability to devote adequate time to Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari between today and October 23,

Docket Entries

2025-10-21
Application (25A455) denied by Justice Barrett.
2025-10-14
Application (25A455) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 22, 2025 to December 21, 2025, submitted to Justice Barrett.

Attorneys

Andy H. Williams
Andy Williams Jr. — Petitioner