In the case of Madigan v. Levin, Harvey N. Levin, a former assistant attorney general for Illinois, filed an age discrimination lawsuit against Lisa Madigan in her official capacity as Attorney General of Illinois and other state officials under both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Equal Protection Clause via 42 U.S.C §1983 after he was terminated from his position at age 61. The defendants moved to dismiss the claim on grounds that ADEA provided exclusive remedy for such claims which was denied by District Court but reversed by Seventh Circuit court stating that it wasn't clear if Congress intended ADEA to preclude equal protection claims. However, when brought before Supreme Court in 2013, it dismissed writ of certiorari as improvidently granted because Seventh Circuit should have asked whether Levin's suit could proceed under §1983 or if ADEA is his only avenue for relief instead of assuming jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal.

The Supreme Court did not issue a formal dissenting opinion in the case of Madigan v. Levin (2013). Instead, the court vacated and remanded the decision of the lower court, stating that it had improvidently granted certiorari - meaning they believed they should not have agreed to review the case in the first place. The central question was whether age discrimination claims could be brought under both Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Equal Protection Clause or if ADEA is exclusive remedy for such claims. However, due to procedural issues related with how this question was presented before them, justices decided against ruling on this matter at all.