Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: 1,139 new confirmed and probable cases; 27 additional deaths; 1,395 hospitalized; 351 in ICU; 2.0 percent average case positivity rate; 2.6 percent average test positivity rate; 71,215 average daily doses; 49 percent of adults fully vaxed
Next Post: Illinois Supreme Court remap roundup
Posted in:
* WGLT last December…
Lawyers for a Kane County restaurant are asking the Illinois Supreme Court to overturn an appellate court decision that found the governor’s indoor dining ban was lawfully imposed.
FoxFire Tavern is one of dozens of restaurants that sued Gov. JB Pritzker and his administration after he issued an executive order imposing stricter restrictions on businesses, including a ban on indoor dining and bar service, in response to rising COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations throughout the state.
The state’s highest court has not yet weighed in on the legal arguments challenging Pritzker’s power to impose the indoor dining ban, or any other restrictions implemented in his numerous executive orders.
The 2nd District Appellate Court’s decision last month that upheld Pritzker’s order prohibiting restaurants from allowing indoor dining cannot stand because it “leaves the restaurant industry out in the cold and without legal redress,” Kevin Nelson, one of FoxFire’s attorneys, wrote in the legal brief to the Illinois Supreme Court submitted on Friday.
The brief asks the court to accept the case and reverse the appellate court’s ruling on the governor’s executive order. However, since the court is not obligated to hear the case, the justices could reject that request and decline to rule on it.
Last year’s appellate ruling is here.
* Today…
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2021
THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE LEAVE TO APPEAL DOCKET WERE DISPOSED OF AS INDICATED:126765-Fox Fire Tavern, LLC, etc., petitioner, v. Jay Robert Pritzker, etc., et al., respondents. Leave to appeal, Appellate Court, Second District. 2-20-0623, 2-20-0627
Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
* I asked the governor’s office for a response. Jordan Abudayyeh…
The Governor is pleased the court rejected this request and sided with upholding Governor Pritzker’s ability to follow the science and protect the citizens of Illinois.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 12:55 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: 1,139 new confirmed and probable cases; 27 additional deaths; 1,395 hospitalized; 351 in ICU; 2.0 percent average case positivity rate; 2.6 percent average test positivity rate; 71,215 average daily doses; 49 percent of adults fully vaxed
Next Post: Illinois Supreme Court remap roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
(Insert applause GIF)
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 1:08 pm
Some lawyers have sure made a lot of money during this pandemic losing cases. It’s nice to see the Courts continue to rule to uphold these sorts of restrictions.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 1:10 pm
Did n’t we whack Kilbride so all the crazies could run wild in the Supreme Court? Wha happened?
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 1:10 pm
I can’t help but wonder how many of these, for lack of a better word, griftees - think the purpose of a Supreme Court is to re-litigate a specific adjudicated decision they don’t agree with in a lower court.
Perhaps it would be helpful to teach this stuff in school. The Supreme Court decides matters of procedure and process, not merits. If the appellate court can’t be shown to have made an error in process in the submitted brief, there is no reason for a higher court to take it up simply on the reasoning that someone thinks the decision is wrong.
I would hope at some point a lawyer would have explained how this works to their client, but layered in enough doublespeak a less than honest lawyer can keep feeding into the poor decision making process of their client to keep those hourly bills flowing.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 1:28 pm
Waiting for Tom Devore to weigh in on this. S/
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 2:00 pm
After hearing these Attorneys on multiple interviews with Greg Bishop. This is far from the outcome they thought the Supreme Court would give them. This business stayed open throughout the whole pandemic plus opened an additional location. Wonder how many people got sick there?
Comment by Club J Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 2:15 pm
=I would hope at some point a lawyer would have explained how this works to their client=
When you have lawyers along the lines of Tom Devore explaining that the purpose of filing these suits is not to win, I’m guessing that procedure isn’t exactly top of mind.
These aren’t really lawsuits. They’re political statements.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 2:17 pm
===These aren’t really lawsuits. They’re political statements.===
Bingo. And expensive ones at that. The money would be better spent supporting a political candidate who shares your beliefs than donating it to the Tom Devore retirement fund.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 2:35 pm
Invisibleman, your understanding of the reasons the S Ct decides to hear, or not hear, a case are incorrect.
Comment by Smack attack Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 3:03 pm
I reread my comment, and you are right. There are an almost infinite amount of reasons a higher court would agree to hear a case from a lower court.
There is only one reason a higher court would reverse a lower court.
I should have been more specific in my wording.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, May 26, 21 @ 7:46 pm