Jussie Smollett, City of Chicago reach settlement in civil lawsuit: court doc

CHICAGO - A settlement has been reached in the civil lawsuit between the City of Chicago and Jussie Smollett.

The former "Empire" actor was convicted on charges that he staged a racist and homophobic attack against himself in downtown Chicago in 2019 and lied to police. That conviction was overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court last November.

The city sued Smollett in 2019 after prosecutors charged him with filing a false police report. The lawsuit sought $130,000 to cover the cost of the police investigation into the case.

Attorneys for Smollett and the city were supposed to be in court Wednesday but signaled they had settled in a federal docket entry. The entry said both parties "need more time to finalize documentation."

Details on the settlement terms have not been released. 

The next status hearing in U.S. District Court has been scheduled for May 29.

City of Chicago v. Smollett

The backstory:

In 2019, Smollett claimed two men wearing red MAGA hats jumped him outside his downtown apartment building and made racist, homophobic comments. He was accused of staging a hoax but Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx dropped the charges against him in exchange for a fine and community service.

Following that, special prosecutor Dan Webb investigated. Smollett was put on trial and found guilty of five counts of disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to 150 days in jail - six of which he served before he was freed pending appeal, 30 months of probation and ordered to pay $130,160 in restitution.

Smollett’s attorney said his client was the victim of double jeopardy.

In November, the state Supreme Court ruled 5-0 to reverse the conviction. A 32-page court document explained the court's decision.

"We are aware that this case has generated significant public interest and that many people were dissatisfied with the resolution of the original case and believed it to be unjust," Justice Elizabeth Rochford wrote in the decision. "Nevertheless, what would be more unjust than the resolution of any one criminal case would be a holding from this court that the state was not bound to honor agreements upon which people have detrimentally relied."