Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: In a nutshell: JCAR’s HDems punted and the appellate court used that as an excuse to punt back
Next Post: House adjourns without further mask drama
Posted in:
* From Jordan Abudayyeh…
The Governor is disappointed in the appellate court’s decision and concerned for the health of those in schools – particularly vulnerable children and adults – and the ability to continue in-person learning. The administration is working with the Attorney General to request an expedited review of this decision from the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the Governor urges everyone to continue following the doctors’ advice to wear masks so students can remain safely learning in classrooms, and is encouraged that the court made it clear that school districts can continue to keep their own mitigations in place.
…Adding… Republican AG candidate Steve Kim…
“JB Pritzker and Kwame Raoul have continued this needless crusade instead of addressing the issues that are holding this state back. It’s time for Kwame Raoul and JB Pritzker to stop pursuing frivolous mandates and address crime and corruption that is costing our state millions every year.
“The courts have spoken. We must empower our families and their civil liberties and end the mandates to return liberty to parents and their children.”
…Adding… Senate GOP Leader Dan McConchie…
The Governor’s quest for total control over our schools appears to be continuing as he once again is doubling down on his mask mandate on students. Pritzker is failing to accept defeat as his ego and desire for power continue to lead him through his decision-making process. It’s clear that the Governor can’t stand the thought of loosening his grip on ruling unilaterally through the pandemic, thus he is willing to go to every extent possible to maintain that power. The fact that he is easing the mask mandate on nearly everyone but students just proves his true intentions.
*** UPDATE *** Press release…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul today issued the following statement regarding the late-night decision issued by the Illinois Appellate Court of the 4th District.
“Late last night the Appellate Court declined to issue a substantive decision in the appeal, and we are disappointed by the court’s ruling. The Appellate Court’s failure to address the important legal issues in question has added to the confusion resulting from the circuit court’s decision prioritizing a relatively small group of plaintiffs who refuse to acknowledge science or the need for public health measures to protect vulnerable Illinois residents.
“The Appellate Court’s ruling focuses exclusively on the emergency rulemaking process used by the Illinois Department of Public Health with respect to a single technical rule. That rule does not affect the executive orders issued by the governor under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, including the governor’s executive order requiring the use of masks in school, the exclusion from school of persons exposed to COVID-19, and testing of unvaccinated school employees working on school premises. That order continues to apply to all persons not specifically named as plaintiffs in the Allen, Austin, Graves and Hughes matters.
“While the Appellate Court’s ruling does not affect the enforceability of the governor’s executive orders, the decision does fundamentally misapply important principles of Illinois law related to the issuance of temporary restraining orders, such as the order issued by the trial court. Attorney General Raoul intends to immediately ask the Illinois Supreme Court to address these significant legal errors and preserve the integrity of the rule of law in Illinois. The COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and the Attorney General is committed to defending the governor’s actions to mitigate the spread of a virus that has resulted in more than 32,000 deaths in Illinois alone, and to protecting the health and safety of all Illinois residents.”
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 10:37 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: In a nutshell: JCAR’s HDems punted and the appellate court used that as an excuse to punt back
Next Post: House adjourns without further mask drama
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
==because he thinks the JCAR would vote it down again==
JCAR doesn’t cover executive orders, just administrative rules.
What’s the difference, you ask? Well, I bill at $200/hr…
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 10:43 am
I’m so thankful JB has been consistent in doing the right thing over politics. Legislators should take notes, this is what it’s like to have courage and to do right by people.
Comment by DisappointedVoter Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 10:46 am
“I bill at $200/hr”
I’m in the wrong business.
Comment by Huh? Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 10:49 am
“Bold strategy Cotton, let’s see how it works out for him.”
Comment by Phil Harmonic Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 10:50 am
Sounds like these districts should be expecting lawsuits regarding ADA access next.
Comment by Publius Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 10:51 am
“The courts have spoken. We must empower our families and their civil liberties and end the mandates to return liberty to parents and their children.”
Last I checked, this court just said that districts have the right to impose mask mandates. They were very clear that their decision was based only on the rule expiring, not any judgement on the rule.
Comment by The Velvet Frog Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 10:54 am
So, as I understand, there is no current mandate, correct? Districts are going to have to make their own individual decisions?
Comment by Confused Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 10:59 am
“The courts have spoken. We must empower our families and their civil liberties and end the mandates to return liberty to parents and their children.”
Dear Steve,
My children were more annoyed at having e-learning work to do during snow days then actually wearing masks. How about you go return the liberty of a homework free snow day ?
Comment by MrMisery Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:00 am
“The courts have spoken. We must empower our families and their civil liberties and end the mandates to return liberty to parents and their children.” With a public eductation you expect that someone will set the rules and lessons for your child you always don’t get everything you want. If you want total control you have the liberty to home school your child or send them to a private school. We are mixing up Liberty(we had an election) and choice.
Comment by Publius Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:04 am
I’m just surprised that Steve Kim remembered he’s running for AG.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:08 am
Will there be more support with the Supremes than in the democratic controlled GA? I agree with Disappointed Voter at 10:46. This isn’t the last public health issue we will ever face.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:08 am
“The courts have spoken.”
Not completely, and not in the way he seems to be implying. I would expect an attorney seeking to be the highest ranking legal officer in the state to know the structure of our court system and how to read a judicial opinion. Maybe I am expecting too much.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:17 am
If Kim thinks that adopting measures to mitigate a pandemic is “frivolous” he lacks the gravitas to hold a statewide office.
Comment by Big Dipper Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:31 am
I think Pritzker is making a political mistake here - And does the Illinois Supreme Court really want to wade into JCAR rules making issues?
Comment by Chicagonk Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:39 am
Is pushing this really in JB’s interest? He’s already announced the end of mandates at the end of the month for everything other than schools, other Dem gov’s are lifting the school mask mandates in their states, and it’s obviously a contentious issue for many who might still be on the fence about voting for him this fall. Anyone who is stridently in favor of keeping the school mandates in place likely isn’t going to vote for Irvin or Bailey anyway. Seems like a prime opportunity to drop it, say he’s done all he legally can to keep people safe, and if cases shoot back up in the next few months he can legitimately say “I told you so”.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:41 am
==Is pushing this really in JB’s interest?==
Did you consider JB’s interests are more than political?
Comment by Transplant Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:54 am
==…say he’s done all he legally can to keep people safe…==
Seems to me going through the entire appeals process covers this for him. Drop it now, and he chances losing support from folks that do support the mandates for not doing everything he could legally do. And frankly, there’s more of those to lose than there is of folks that might be trying to decide between him and Bailey/Irvin/Sullivan/etc…
Comment by Fixer Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:55 am
I’ll freely confess, I have no clue who I’m voting for, at this point. However, I believe Lester’s right about this.
Comment by Tynie Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:57 am
What Transplant said at 11:54. I agree.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:58 am
I’d say a major reason for not giving up on this is to make sure he has the ability to take action in the future if the situation gets worse again. Sure, the latest ruling doesn’t actually set any precedent on that but his opponents are already spinning it that way.
Comment by The Velvet Frog Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:59 am
==Seems like a prime opportunity to drop it, say he’s done all he legally can to keep people safe==
Well, he hasn’t, tho.
==and if cases shoot back up in the next few months he can legitimately say “I told you so”. ==
I suspect that if cases shoot up again he’s in deep trouble even if he says “I told you so”.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 11:59 am
If cases shoot up Republicans will say “he should have fought us harder.”
Comment by Big Dipper Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 12:11 pm
Would love to see some public ire from the Gov directed at the Dems who made this happen. At the very least, it better be happening behind the scenes.
Comment by SWSider Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 12:13 pm
It seems that Holt’s Mustache has solved COVID-19 as a national issue, & none of us can ever become infected or potentially die. (My above sentence is an attempt at dark humor. Someone who writes about state politics & not about public health & mitigating the spread of an infectious, dangerous virus is not supposed to be taken seriously.)
Comment by Chris in ChiTown Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 12:16 pm
I would believe the Supreme Court wants no part of this during an election year. Or, isuue some sort of win/win decision, so both parties get something. I hope there isn’t another huge spike to force the issue.
Comment by BTO2 Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 12:23 pm
I’m less concerned about the politics than whether my unvaxxed kid will catch a deadly lung disease
Comment by SWIL_Voter Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 12:28 pm
IF the IL SC takes it up, I suspect the same result as the 4th. More likely they will duck and not review it …
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 12:36 pm
-IF the IL SC takes it up, I suspect the same result as the 4th. More likely they will duck and not review it …-
So do I. If they were serious about “fixing” this, the move would be to go back to JCAR first, reverse things there, then start over in the courts.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 12:38 pm
Call me crazy but it would be nice if it took more the one circuit court judge to invalidate a Governor’s Executive Order, in a footnote no less. If that is all it really took we might have well just stuck with Judge McHaney order.
Comment by Tom Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 12:50 pm
Judge Holder-White’s dissent reads, “As to whether the circuit court properly enjoined enforcement of the Governor’s executive orders, I find that issue is not moot where defendants asserted the Governor
implemented masking, exclusion, and testing through the executive orders pursuant to his authority under the Illinois Emergency Management Act (20 ILCS 3305/7 (West 2020)).” And, “As it stands, the majority’s decision leaves open the question of whether the circuit court properly enjoined the enforcement of the executive orders.”
This is where any appeal might have merits, in part because it is a question of executive authority, and in part, because it is of direct relevance going forward should future mandates be necessary.
Comment by H-W Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 12:50 pm
Courts normally rule very narrowly on issues, and will find any reason not to actually decide a case when it can be avoided entirely. This prevents the Court from issuing hypothetical rulings without an active controversy being before it. But the App. Ct. should have dealt with the issues due to the pandemic emergency rather than dismiss the case. Sadly the IL Supt Ct. may well do the same thing, and require yet more litigation as a result, as they did with a FOID case they could have heard under their rules.
Comment by thisjustinagain Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 12:57 pm
==If they were serious about “fixing” this, the move would be to go back to JCAR first, reverse things there, then start over in the courts.==
Cue Devore screaming contempt of court as the rules are identical to the ones previously invalidated.
Comment by Big Dipper Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:04 pm
==Courts normally rule very narrowly on issues, and will find any reason not to actually decide a case when it can be avoided entirely. This prevents the Court from issuing hypothetical rulings without an active controversy being before it.==
Except the Seventh Circuit wisely did the opposite on more than one occasion, recognizing that the pandemic is fluid and similar measures are foreseeable.
Comment by Big Dipper Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:06 pm
This is a bad move politically. The political winds are shifting away from this and what I’m predicting is a longer drawn out process with more losses that will continue to rack up bad press as the election year goes on. Realistically, you could see this get remanded back to the 4th and then clock keeps ticking closer to election day. Not following the medical science or the political science. Sheesh.
Comment by Citizen Kane Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:09 pm
First, it was JB bad-mouthing Judge Grischow’s finding, and now it’s Kwame dissing the 4th Appellate Dist. Hmm.
“Bold strategy Cotton, let’s see how it works out for them.”
Comment by Phil Harmonic Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:23 pm
I get why they are going to appeal in case ’something needs to be done later’ but I think it would also make sense to legislate a framework for doing something later that would have better luck in the courts (and to a degree with JCAR).
Comment by OneMan Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:25 pm
==First, it was JB bad-mouthing Judge Grischow’s finding, and now it’s Kwame dissing the 4th Appellate Dist. Hmm.==
Well if you like to hmmm the author is a former GOP state rep.
Comment by Big Dipper Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:35 pm
===Kwame dissing the 4th Appellate Dist. Hmm.===
Dissing does not mean expressing a substantive disagreement. Dissing is what the previous governor and RRB used to do when referring to the judiciary. Not sure where you were then, but this most definitely ain’t that, buttercup.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:39 pm
…and, yes, “buttercup” was meant as a mild diss.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:40 pm
I am positive Governor Pritzker cares for the health of his fellow Illinoisan’s…I am equally positive Devore does not.
Comment by Dotnonymous Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:43 pm
I’m not sure whether this could be addressed in the Attorney General’s petition for leave to appeal, but it seems to me that JCAR’s authority to suspend the effectiveness of the emergency rules is an important separation of powers issue that needs to be addressed. It is questionable, at least to me, as to whether there the statutory authority for JCAR to “legislatively veto” an agency rule is a separation of powers violation. That is a provision of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act that has never been challenged. This issue has come up in other states and according to NCSL when this came up in 11 states, courts in 9 states ruled that it was unconstitutional.
Comment by Facts Matter Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:47 pm
== This is a bad move politically. The political winds are shifting away from this ==
This is not true. The polling doesn’t back this up. At. All. A very loud small minority on social media is never a good indicator of the larger public.
Comment by DisappointedVoter Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 1:56 pm
===The polling doesn’t back this up. At. All.=== the polling supports my position entirely that the winds are shifting away from masking. Currently it’s in the mid-50% for support. That was higher last year. So the decreasing support for masking will only intensify as the rest of America does away with masks like Illinois on the 28th. So by the time all of these appeals and everything run their course, we could very well be in a situation where masks would no longer be recommended in schools. So yea, let’s watch and see. This will be fruitless and moot.
Comment by Citizen Kane Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 2:35 pm
===The Governor’s quest for total control over our schools===
We haven’t even discussed this GOP talking point that seems to be in use across the board when talking about the mask mandate. A mask mandate during a respiratory pandemic is not a “quest for total control.” I’d like to see a few folks in the press ask a purveyor of this nonsense how this leads to “total control.” Is there a secret plan to dissolve all school boards and put the governor in charge of all schools? If so, we need to know. With respect to candidates for governor, will they dissolve ISBE and work to eliminate all school-related mandates in state law?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 2:55 pm
==…and, yes, “buttercup” was meant as a mild diss.==
Boo, boo to you. Buttercup is a revered character in one of my favorite movies and should not be used as a term of disrespect. (Even if it is a mild diss.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 2:58 pm
@ Pot == As to the talking point issue. I am not so sure debating the mask mandate as a quest for total control would go anywhere, since neither side of the aisle would abandon their position. But I would suggest here that discussing masks as quarantine would be a fruitful debate to have, and resolve. I wrote a few days ago that I cannot fathom how masking became defined as quarantine. It is contrary to the very definition of quarantine to suggest a mask isolates or removes or even hinders participation in a social activity. That bit of rules making was insane, and in many ways, allowed this outcome. While Governors do own, Legislatures are not innocent. Indeed, they are often the cause of the problems they set out to fix.
Comment by H-W Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 3:11 pm
=== Buttercup is a revered character in one of my favorite movies and should not be used as a term of disrespect. ===
As you wish.
Comment by Man in Black Friday, Feb 18, 22 @ 3:16 pm