Charles Norgle

Charles Ronald Norgle Sr. is a federal judge on senior status with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He joined the court in 1984 after being nominated by President Ronald Reagan (R). He assumed senior status on October 4, 2022.^[1]

Early life and education

Norgle is a native Chicago citizen who graduated from Northwestern University in Evanston, IL in 1964 with his bachelor's degree and earned his law degree from John Marshall Law School in 1969.^[1]

Professional career

Assistant state's attorney, DuPage County, Illinois, 1969-1971
Deputy public defender, DuPage County, Illinois, 1971-1973
Associate judge, DuPage County, Illinois, 1973-1977
Circuit judge, DuPage County, Illinois, 1977-1978
Associate judge, DuPage County, Illinois, 1978-1981
Circuit judge, DuPage County, Illinois, 1981-1984^[1]

Judicial career

Northern District of Illinois

Norgle was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on September 10, 1984, to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois created by 98 Stat. 333 under congressional approval. Norgle was confirmed by the Senate on October 3, 1984, and received his commission on October 4, 1984.^[1]

Noteworthy cases

Aurora Planned Parenthood case (2007)

See also: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Planned Parenthood Chicago Area, et al., v. City of Aurora, Illinois, 07-c-5181)

In 2007, Judge Norgle declined to grant a request for an emergency court order that would have allowed Planned Parenthood to open a multi-million dollar facility in the Chicago suburb of Aurora. Abortion opponents had been battling the opening of the clinic, and saw the decision as a small victory.^[2]

The issue arose when the City of Aurora notified Planned Parenthood that it would not allow them to open until an investigation on how building permits for the project were obtained was undertaken.

Planned Parenthood admitted to using the name of a subsidiary, Gemini Office Development, LLC, when they applied for the building permits. They contended that they had done nothing wrong, that they used the name in order to avoid alerting abortion opponents, and that the city was only withholding their permits due to pressure from 'pro-lifers' and abortion opponents. Aurora officials stated that they were concerned as to whether the sexual and reproductive healthcare provider committed fraud when it applied for building permits with the pseudonym, and specifically because it wrote that the tenant was "unknown".^[2]

After the City informed Planned Parenthood it would withhold the permits, Norgle held an emergency hearing to determine if Planned Parenthood met the legal standards to qualify for a preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction would have ordered the city to allow the opening on a temporary basis while litigation progressed. Norgle rejected Planned Parenthood's demand and commented that its attorneys had put forth a deficient case; he allowed them leave to amend their motion with additional evidence. "By no means is this case over," Norgle said.^[2]

The Aurora city council engaged an outside attorney to review the permit-granting process.^[2] Ultimately, Planned Parenthood was granted a permit, and allowed to open their health center in Aurora.^[3]

Slavery reparations case (2004)

See also: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (In Re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation, 02-c-7764)

In 2004, Norgle tossed out a civil suit brought by the descendants of slaves against a handful of tobacco, railroad and insurance companies they said benefited from slave labor. In a written judgment, Norgle said the plaintiffs failed to make any direct connection between their enslaved ancestors and the companies cited in the suit.

"Plaintiffs wish to litigate the issue of slavery without establishing that they have suffered some concrete and particularized injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendants," Norgle wrote.

Norgle also stated it was not sufficient to simply allege "some genealogical relationship to African-Americans held in slavery over 100, 200, or 300 years ago."

Norgle ruled that the complaints had exceeded the statute of limitations, and that the issue of reparations posed by the suit would be better handled by US lawmakers. The case was later revived, and dismissed a second time.^[4]