Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The consequences of reopening too soon
Next Post: State delays $1.2 billion bond sale
Posted in:
* As you already know, Rep. Darren Bailey (R-Xenia) has withdrawn his request for a TRO against the governor’s executive order. But the governor is pressing ahead with the Illinois Supreme Court…
The Governor maintains his request for supervisory relief under Rule 383, which included a request for a stay of circuit court proceedings. Given the changed circumstances brought about by Bailey’s decision to consent to the vacatur of the TRO he had sought and obtained, the Governor now seeks under Rule 383 resolution of the underlying legal question presented by this case—that is, whether the Governor acted within the scope of his authority under the Illinois Emergency Management Act (“Act”), 20 ILCS 3305/1, et seq., and the Illinois Constitution when he issued disaster proclamations and executive orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic—and a stay of the circuit court proceedings pending resolution of this supplemental motion.
More info about Rule 383 is here.
* Reasoning…
As detailed in the Governor’s April 29 emergency motion, the exercise of supervisory authority is appropriate here because the normal appellate process will not afford sufficient relief and because the resolution of the underlying legal question presented will have a profound effect on the Governor’s response to the public health emergency presently facing Illinois. The dissolution of the TRO, which will prolong the normal appellate review process, only heightens these considerations.
Indeed, the deleterious effects of the circuit court’s order—even though dissolved—will not cease unless and until this Court makes a definitive pronouncement on the scope of the Governor’s authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Illinois residents during a global pandemic. As one example, there are already indications that the uncertainty over the lawfulness of the Governor’s emergency actions has caused individuals to stop complying with the stay-at-home directives. Two days after the court entered the TRO, a COVID-19 positive individual living in Bailey’s district visited three stores in violation of the stay-at-home order. And on May 1, 2020, protestors gathered in Chicago and Springfield in violation of the stay-at-home order. Additionally, the initial entry of the TRO has caused litigants to file similar suits seeking relief from the stay-at- home orders. Similar lawsuits will likely follow in Illinois courts, which are already minimizing operations, and lead to a patchwork of conflicting orders when concerted guidance is needed. […]
Moreover, the mootness doctrine does not prevent this Court from reviewing whether the Governor acted within his authority. Courts of review generally will not decide questions that are moot, in the sense that “the issues involved in the trial court no longer exist because intervening events have rendered it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effectual relief.” But a reviewing court may decide issues that are moot under various exceptions to mootness, including the public interest exception, and the exception for issues capable of repetition but evading review. Accordingly, to the extent this Court determines that the underlying question is moot, it is not precluded from reaching the question because both of these exceptions apply here. […]
(T)here is unquestionably a likelihood of future recurrence of the question raised in this case. Bailey agreed to have the TRO vacated, but he did not voluntarily dismiss his case with prejudice. So in this case alone, the question is likely to recur. And, again, other litigation will certainly present the same question. Resolving that question sooner rather than later, after a period of needless uncertainty about whether the Governor’s executive orders are legally authorized, will greatly serve the public interest. […]
Indeed, Bailey, apparently seeking to manipulate the court system to his advantage, has reserved the right to have the same issue decided against the Governor. But he should not be given a veto over where, and when, the courts ultimately decide that issue. Instead, this Court should now take the issue that he first raised (and reserves the right to raise again) and decide it for the benefit of the Governor and all the people of Illinois.
…Adding… Chicago Daily Law Bulletin…
Bailey’s attorney Thomas DeVore said his client intends to file an amended complaint by the end of the week.
His initial complaint argues the governor cannot exercise his emergency powers beyond 30 days, and that the state’s authority to quarantine is delegated to the Illinois Department of Public Health and local health departments.
“I feel their request for the supreme court to intervene under these facts is unprecedented and is an insult to the honorable circuit court,” DeVore, an attorney with Silver Lake Group Ltd. in Greenville, said in an email.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:01 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The consequences of reopening too soon
Next Post: State delays $1.2 billion bond sale
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“But… but I quitted… I quitted it… and stuff”
- Mr. Bailey, maybe.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:04 pm
There is no fence to sit upon…the Court must decide this public health issue immediately in order for public clarity during this…critical emergency.
Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:09 pm
Let’s not give too much credit to Beetle Bailey. He doesn’t understand what he filed any more than he grasps what has been withdrawn.
His intent was the cheap and dirty press pop. Mission accomplished.
The ongoing payment of an attorney and actual adjudication of his suit were never, ever contemplated.
Comment by Say What? Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:13 pm
beetle beat down continues.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:15 pm
When dad is threatening you with discipline, always have grandpa’s number on speed dial.
Also, seems JB and the execs seem to not be too concerned with the “new information” Bailey seems to be wagging in the wind…
Comment by HigherPowers Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:15 pm
===… “new information” Bailey seems to be wagging in the wind…===
There’s no new information…the new information is Mr. Bailey realized the ruling is a grievance driven list of drivel by a judge willing to put his own passion ahead of adjudicating actual law.
The only thing that would be better is if Mr. Bailey called this all “fake news” or called the judicial system “corrupt”
Might as well go all-in, like the governor said about fighting this virus too.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:19 pm
If he was my rep I’d be asking him why it is so important to infect as many people as possible.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:19 pm
–I feel their request for the supreme court to intervene under these facts is unprecedented and is an insult to the honorable circuit court–
And if they decide to exercise jurisdiction, the IL Supreme Court can insult the honorable circuit court all they want.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:20 pm
- if Mr. Bailey called this all “fake news” or called the judicial system “corrupt” -
I think you misspelled “When” in that sentence.
Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:21 pm
===Bailey’s attorney Thomas DeVore said===
Meh. He’s getting paid I’m guessing. Plus, the notoriety is probably fun for him too.
A real Atticus Finch.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:22 pm
“… state’s authority to quarantine is delegated to the Illinois Department of Public Health …”
Please remind me, IDPH is under which constitutional elected official?
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:24 pm
- Excitable Boy -
You’re probably “more right” than me, dunno what that says about Mr. Bailey, but he quitted and stuff so we should stop picking on him.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:24 pm
This is the big leagues folks. Not the little league we saw from Bailey and Cabello. Impressive move by the good guys.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:28 pm
The indignation by both sides about picking favorable venues is really over the top.
Lawyers and people seeking favorable venues is just about as old a strategy as exists in the world’s second oldest profession.
We would all probably be better off in the Federal Court system. I suspect that many more cases will be filled and eventually the US Supremes will consider this issue.
Comment by Back to the Future Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:36 pm
=== We would all probably be better off in the Federal Court system.===
Ask Mr. Breen how that worked for him.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:38 pm
OW
Seems you got my drift.
I suspect Breen will appeal, but maybe he is just in it for the show.
Comment by Back to the Future Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:41 pm
-picking favorable venues-
Favorable implies co-equal. The IL Supreme Court would get the matter eventually anyway. This just cuts down the time, and probably a few interviews for the plaintiffs.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:42 pm
=== but maybe he is just in it for the show.===
Yeah… Mr. Breen, now, is a caricature of his former self, using piety and faith when his own faith seemingly sees life worth saving during a pandemic.
It’s been an interesting few years for Mr. Breen, to say the least,
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:43 pm
Ron . IL Supreme Court justices have party affiliations attached to their names. Also, Dems outnumber Rs on it.
Comment by Joa Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 12:59 pm
===IL Supreme Court justices have party affiliations attached to their names. Also, Dems outnumber Rs on it.===
What are you saying? Use your words.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 1:01 pm
–Ron . IL Supreme Court justices have party affiliations attached to their names. Also, Dems outnumber Rs on it.–
Yes they do, and they have supervisory authority over all trial courts in Illinois, and can review any decision they make. They were elected to do that. That’s how our system works.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 1:07 pm
==IL Supreme Court justices have party affiliations attached to their names. Also, Dems outnumber Rs on it.==
What ARE you saying? The inference is insulting to people like former Chief Justice Rita Garman, for example. She brings honor and dignity and intellect to the bench.
This will not be decided on a partisan vote. The wing nuts are on their own.
Comment by Say What? Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 1:08 pm
=We would all probably be better off in the Federal Court system.=
The issue in this case is “whether the Governor acted within the scope of his authority under the Illinois Emergency Management Act . . . and the Illinois Constitution”.
There is no claim justiciable in the federal courts.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 1:09 pm
If I were the AG, and if the request for a supervisory order is unsuccessful, I’d file a counterclaim for declaratory judgment. That would help remove the possibility of further shenanigans by these plaintiffs.
Comment by Esqwired Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 1:31 pm
“What ARE you saying?” I wonder if he’s trying to find a way to blame Madigan.
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 2:05 pm
I see the point on the jurisdiction of federal courts, but I don’t think we should underestimate the creativity of our local bar. Most lawyers can figure out how to make claim that meets the jurisdictional restrictions in State or Federal court.
Regardless of the Ds and Rs on the Illinois Supreme, we have been fortunate over the years to have a lot of fine lawyers serve on that court.
Comment by Back to the Future Tuesday, May 5, 20 @ 2:10 pm