Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Investors expected to demand “fatter yields” on new state bonds, but not because of default danger
Posted in:
A judge on Monday denied Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s motion to vacate the orders of a Clay County judge who had ruled against the governor.
The governor could still challenge the ruling in the case filed by state Rep. Darren Bailey, which claimed Pritzker had exceeded his executive authority during the pandemic.
The ruling by Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Judge Raylene Grischow said the governor could challenge the Clay County ruling for other reasons, but not over jurisdiction.
Grischow ruled that a Clay County judge had jurisdiction to issue a July 2 order that struck down Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s executive orders on COVID-19 beyond the initial 30-day period.
Oral arguments on the merits of the case are set for Dec. 7.
Grischow entered an order Monday that denied the governor’s motion to vacate the Clay County Judge’s order. The governor had claimed Clay County Judge Michael McHaney didn’t have jurisdiction.
“Considering the foregoing cases, along with the fact that it is well settled that public documents which are included in the records of other courts may be the subject of judicial notice, along with the fact the parties handed the Clay County Court a copy of the Order of Remand which was filed instanter on July 2, 2020, this court finds that the Clay County Circuit Court did in fact have jurisdiction,” Grischow wrote.
The Order of Remand was from the federal court, which sent the case back to the circuit court.
McHaney’s order over the summary struck down Pritzker’s executive orders beyond the initial 30-day period from the first COVID-19 related order. The ruling said it shall apply to all commonly situated citizens of Illinois, not just state Rep. Darren Bailey, R-Xenia, who filed the case in Clay County.
Grischow said if the governor wants to challenge McHaney’s order on the merits, his legal team has until Oct. 30 to file such a motion. Final filings would be by Nov. 20, 2020. Oral arguments on that are set for 1:30 p.m. on Dec. 7.
The Illinois Attorney General’s office wasn’t immediately available for comment after 5:30 p.m. Monday.
Bailey’s attorney, Thomas DeVore, said he looked forward to arguing the substance of the case.
“Should the governor want to move to have Judge Grishow reconsider McHaney’s ruling, I look forward to arguing in front of her why we believe McHaney made the right decisions on the merits,” DeVore said.
The ruling is here.
* Rep. Darren Bailey…
Failed Governor loses AGAIN!
Um, OK.
I was told last night by the attorney general’s office that this was a narrow procedural issue and the office will file a motion to reconsider the Clay County court’s July 2 ruling on the merits, pursuant to the schedule ordered by Judge Grischow.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 9:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Investors expected to demand “fatter yields” on new state bonds, but not because of default danger
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Eastern Bloc has an interesting take on what a “win” entails.
Brad Halbrook speaks of “defeating” Roger Eddy in a primary when Eddy dropped out of the race to take the job as Executive Director of the Illinois School Board Association.
A poll just prior to Eddy dropping out of the race to take the State School Board association gig had Eddy up 93% - 7%. Eddy then proceeded to ask his voters NOT to vote for him as he would be unable to serve another term due to the new job.
In Eastern Bloc fantasyland, this constitutes a “win”.
Morons . . . . . .all.
Comment by Go Big Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 10:34 am
Picturing Bailey and Devore showboating a victory lap maskless before tens of adoring fans.
#winning
Comment by Cubs in '16 Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 10:34 am
Narrow procedural issue, lol, right. JB lost because he’s overstepping his authority.
Comment by Bacon Bits Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 10:39 am
=Narrow procedural issue, lol, right. JB lost because he’s overstepping his authority.=
Um . . . . .the case has not been heard on its’ merits. There is no actual “win” F. Lee Bailey.
Comment by Go Big Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 10:42 am
What a mess Bailey and DeVore has made all while people are dying of this virus. I wouldn’t be surprised if they aren’t having some kind of parade in Clay County for Bailey and DeVore after this ruling. The Edgar County Watchdogs were praising them, WMAY asked Senator Paul Schimpf what he was telling his people now the the Governor lost in court.
What don’t these people understand about what the Governor is doing here. He just isn’t making these rules to hurt businesses. It’s about saving lives. About keeping people out of hospitals. Keep people from getting sick from this virus all together. If everyone just did their part maybe he wouldn’t have to make these hard decisions. My high school friend fought for 38 days in the hospital with COVID and died alone yesterday while Bailey and DeVore boast about this failed Governor. Well shame on them.
Comment by Club J Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 10:48 am
This case has no merit…stay tuned.
Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 10:53 am
Must be a slow day at the IPI.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 11:00 am
==Failed Governor loses AGAIN!==
Bailey can’t even be original. He has to quote the Super Spreader in Chief.
Comment by don the legend Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 11:08 am
Case where Baily alleges Gov exceeded his authority and in turn , State contends that original Judge also did so by abusing discretion and ruling wrong.
The new Judge merely avoids such a claim against her on a close procedural technicality.
Says let it go forward on the Merits .
( and based on other Federal & State Court Decisions - a bet on Team Bailey is a Bad Bet )
Comment by Red Ketcher Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 11:21 am
“slow day at the IPI”
Meanwhile, Greg Bishop will be running with this “story” for days.
Comment by Flying Elvis'-Utah Chapter Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 11:42 am
This court found that the Clay County Circuit Court did have jurisdiction over the matter in question.
The substance of the matter was never addressed.
At all.
But I can understand why an attorney with the win-loss record of Thomas DeVore would feel compelled to trumpet this “victory.”
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 11:49 am
This was an argument on a highly technical issue: was the Clay County judge required to wait until the federal court sent a physical remand order to the circuit court from the federal court before deciding the case. A careful judge would have; he didn’t.
It’s a curious order as it seems to directly contradict the federal removal statute (28 USC 1447(c)), which says that the state court may proceed with a case after the certified copy of the remand order is mailed to the circuit clerk of the state court. I’m not sure any of the cases cited in the order say what the order claims they do, but even if they did, the most recent Illinois supreme court decision, according to the order, requires a physical copy of the remand order before the state court regains jurisdiction. The order doesn’t seem to be based on any actual legal authority.
Comment by duck duck goose Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 12:24 pm
Never want to argue anything in court on December 7/s
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Oct 20, 20 @ 4:30 pm