Chicago Public Schools social worker Philip Weiss and Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis Gates. | Liberty Justice Center / Illinois Federation of Teachers
Chicago Public Schools social worker Philip Weiss and Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis Gates. | Liberty Justice Center / Illinois Federation of Teachers
A Cook County judge has ruled that a lawsuit against the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) can proceed, rejecting the union’s attempt to have the case dismissed.
The lawsuit, Weiss v. Chicago Teachers Union, was filed in October 2024 by longtime CTU member and CPS social worker Philip Weiss and three other plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, represented by the Liberty Justice Center, have accused union leadership of failing to release required financial audits since 2020, in violation of the union’s constitution.
The plaintiffs are not seeking monetary damages, but are demanding access to the audit reports and a forensic review of the union’s financial practices.
In a ruling issued on May 15, Judge David B. Atkins rejected CTU’s motion to dismiss the case, stating that the union “does not even directly dispute” its failure to provide the audits.
Atkins also denied a separate motion by the union to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ filings, which included allegations of retaliation, intimidation, and misuse of member dues.
“CTU violated its Constitution by failing to provide audited reports since 2020. CTU didn’t dispute it—they just called the rule ‘outdated’ and the issue moot. The Court rejected those arguments,” the Liberty Justice Center posted on X.
In response to the union's attempt to dismiss the case on procedural grounds, the Liberty Justice Center emphasized that the court recognized the legitimacy of their claims.
“CTU said our case should be dismissed because we’re not asking for money. But the Court made clear: asking the union to follow its own rules is a valid legal remedy,” Liberty Justice Center wrote.
Atkins also pushed back on the union’s claim that the plaintiffs’ motives were political, noting that such accusations were irrelevant to the legal question at hand.
“The Court rejected CTU’s motion to strike, finding our client’s allegations were ‘neither scandalous nor impertinent’ and go directly to whether proper audit reports were provided,” the Liberty Justice Center noted. “Judge Atkins also called out the hypocrisy of CTU’s affidavit, which accused our clients of acting for political reasons.”
The plaintiffs allege that CTU spends a disproportionate share of member dues—estimated at $30 million annually—on political causes unrelated to union services.
At the center of the controversy is the union’s nearly $5 million contribution to Mayor Brandon Johnson’s 2023 campaign, which Weiss says was transferred without proper authorization and may have involved co-mingling of political and member funds.
Johnson was notably a longtime CTU member and organizer who served as a lobbyist for the union while also holding office as a Cook County Commissioner at the time of his election.
Weiss also claims that CTU President Stacy Davis Gates circumvented the union’s House of Delegates in executing the contribution and refused to release audits even after 14 formal requests.
“This is not her piggy bank,” Weiss previously told Chicago City Wire of the CTU’s financial practices.
The ruling came just before the CTU’s May 16 leadership election, in which Davis Gates faces a challenge from the REAL caucus, a group campaigning on greater transparency and reduced political spending.
With the dismissal denied, the plaintiffs will now move into discovery, where they can request internal documents and financial records.
If successful, the case could compel the CTU to retroactively release full audits and ensure future compliance with financial disclosure rules.
Underscoring the core purpose of the case, Liberty Justice Center attorney Dean McGee clarified that the lawsuit is rooted in member accountability.
“This ruling lets us move forward to get the facts,” McGee said, according to the Tampa Free Press. “CTU members have a right to know how their dues are spent—this case is about enforcing that right, nothing more.”