Jussie Smollett‘s legal battle against the city of Chicago may have recently suffered a blow after a federal judge dismissed the singer-actor’s claim of ‘malicious prosecution’ stemming from his reopened alleged hate attack hoax case (click here to read more), but now the ‘Empire’ star is striking back.

More below:

Former Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson speaks at a press conference

In recently filed court documents, Smollett cited the ongoing worldwide protests against police brutality and systemic racial injustice as evidence questions should be raised in his own case – namely as it relates to the termination of Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson last year.

Smollett argued he deserved an explanation of Johnson’s exit, especially since the former cop was involved in Smollett’s case from its onset.

“As we see millions across the country rise up to protest and expose police misconduct, the city, by its refusal to produce the requested documents, is choosing to actively resist a citizen’s lawful efforts to reveal dishonesty, directly relating to the charges against him, throughout the department, including the police superintendent who oversaw and publicly commented on the investigation of Mr. Smollett’s report of a vicious hate crime and assault,” read the Smollett motion to have the city produce documents into Johnson’s firing.

Later, the filing read:

“Indeed, the city’s opposition to the motion to compel puts the cart before the horse and largely fails to appreciate that this case remains in the discovery phase,” the filing continued. “Allegations are not proven facts, but the city improperly assumes that it has already proven that Mr. Smollett made false statements to the CPD.”

The motion concluded with the singer-actor’s reps suggesting the city of Chicago “conspicuously omits the role of individuals at CPD that concluded Mr. Smollett allegedly made false statements to the CPD…Smollett is on trial, not Eddie Johnson as a premise to oppose the motion to compel, the city improperly seeks to narrow the scope of discoverable information.”

As of time reported, no official response has been rendered in the 37-year-old’s latest legal endeavor.

Your thoughts?