#Illinois Supreme Court

[tomorrowusa]

The Illinois legislature passed an assault weapons ban earlier this year. On Friday the Illinois Supreme Court upheld that ban.

The Illinois Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the state’s ban on assault weapons, meaning that law will stay in effect statewide. In a 4-3 decision issued Friday morning, the high court overturned a lower court’s ruling, stating the ban is constitutional and does not “deny equal protection nor constitute special legislation.” Gov. J.B. Pritzker said he was “pleased” with the ruling Friday and called it a win for “advocates, survivors, and families alike because it preserves this nation-leading legislation to combat gun violence and save countless lives.” “This is a commonsense gun reform law to keep mass-killing machines off of our streets and out of our schools, malls, parks, and places of worship,” he said in a statement. “Illinoisans deserve to feel safe in every corner of our state—whether they are attending a Fourth of July Parade or heading to work—and that’s precisely what the Protect Illinois Communities Act accomplishes.”

The law is not retroactive and those who legally bought such guns before the law went into effect can keep them. The differentiation between existing ownership and new ownership was the basis for the suit which SCOIL ruled on.

“To the extent plaintiffs allege they already possess restricted items, plaintiffs may retain them but may not acquire more, which matches the restrictions placed on those who are grandfathered under the Act,” the court wrote in its ruling. “The statutes treat plaintiffs who already possess assault weapons and LCMs the same as the grandfathered individuals.”

There will probably be other attempts to overturn the Illinois law. The Illinois assault weapons ban may very well end up before the US Supreme Court. A SCOTUS ruling against the Illinois law in an election year could set off a firestorm similar to what happened after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision last year.

The assault weapons law would not have been possible without a Democratic trifecta in Illinois.

After decades of treating state government like a poor cousin, Democrats in many states have taken a renewed interest in that level of governance. Michigan Democrats gained a trifecta in Michigan for the first time in over 35 years with the 2022 elections and passed a remarkable series of reforms in 100 days.

So good things happen when people get more involved in state politics. As I like to remind people, the first step is to find out who represents you in your state legislature. This site makes it easy to find that out...

Find Your Legislators Look your legislators up by address or use your current location.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Illinois is set to become the first state in the nation to eliminate cash bail after the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a landmark criminal justice reform law did not violate the state’s constitution.

The opinion was released more than six months after the Pretrial Fairness Act was halted by the Justices just hours before it was to go into effect Jan. 1 in response to legal challenges. The high court said the law should now go into effect in September.

In its 5-2 ruling, the court said the state’s constitution “does not mandate that monetary bail is the only means to ensure criminal defendants appear for trials or the only means to protect the public. Our constitution creates a balance between the individual rights of defendants and the individual rights of crime victims. The Act’s pretrial release provisions set forth procedures commensurate with that balance.”

The majority rejected claims that the Legislature had overstepped its authority by eliminating bail through the Act, writing that “the legislature has long regulated the bail system.”

The court’s only two Republican Justices dissented, saying “the legislature’s abolishment of monetary bail is in direct violation of the plain language of our constitution’s bill of rights and, more specifically, the vested rights of crime victims. ... This court has an absolute obligation to declare the pretrial release provisions of the Act to be invalid and unenforceable no matter how beneficial the abolishment of monetary bail may be.”

The bail system overhaul was one of the most controversial provisions of the widely scrutinized SAFE-T Act, a major bill that mandated wide-ranging reforms to policing, court proceedings and victims’ rights in the state.

The court’s ruling stems from a flurry of lawsuits last year brought by roughly 60 sheriffs and state’s attorneys who argued that eliminating cash bail would reduce public safety, put law enforcement in harm’s way and violate the state’s constitution.

In December, Kankakee County Chief Judge Thomas Cunnington agreed with the groups and ruled the cash bail provision unconstitutional, though his ruling would have only applied to counties that had sued.

An appeal by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul sent the matter to the state Supreme Court, and the Justices ordered that the entire Pretrial Fairness Act wouldn’t go into effect until further notice “in order to maintain consistent pretrial procedures throughout Illinois.” 

In the ruling Tuesday, Chief Judge Mary Jane Theis said Cunnington’s decision ignored the plain language of the bail clause in the state’s constitution, which never included the term “monetary, so does not cement the practice of monetary bail, however long-standing and prevalent across Illinois, into our constitution.”

Raoul released a statement Tuesday morning saying “someone’s experience with the criminal justice system should not vary based on their income level. The SAFE-T Act was intended to address pervasive inequalities in the criminal justice system, in particular the fact that individuals who are awaiting criminal trials — who have not been convicted of a crime and are presumed innocent — may spend extended periods of time incarcerated because they cannot afford to pay cash bail.”

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who supported the bail reform, said the ruling “is a monumental milestone toward achieving equal justice for all in Cook County and Illinois. ... Ending cash bail is in line with our values and is a critical step toward economic and racial justice in Cook County and Illinois.”

But McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally, an opponent of the bail act, called the ruling “a sad reflection of state of ideological capture in our three branches of government. ... We at the state’s attorney’s office will continue to do everything within our power to ensure that dangerous offenders remain behind bars pre-trial or that other measures, such as electronic monitoring, are in put in place to minimize risk.”

Despite a two-year ramp-up before bail reform was to go into effect, opponents waited until late last year to mount a serious effort to overturn the law, as well as a political pressure campaign before last year’s statewide elections.

In the weeks before the election, opponents derided the SAFE-T Act as a “purge law” and claimed it would make the state — with a particular focus on Chicago — less safe by releasing more violent criminals to prey on the public.

Supporters of the Pretrial Fairness Act said its provisions would simply remove cash bail as a condition that could be set by a judge when considering whether someone was likely to return to court for their hearings or posed a danger to the public.

Studies of jurisdictions that have nearly eliminated cash bail have shown no significant increase in crime generally, nor by defendants released while awaiting trial. In some cases, defendants were more likely to return to court.

The elimination of cash bail does not mean people charged with crimes cannot be held in custody pending trial.

Under the act, the courts will continue to hold detention hearings for people accused of serious crimes to determine whether someone poses a safety risk if released and whether someone is likely to show up for their hearings — the same considerations that now often determine cash bail.

People charged with misdemeanors and other minor offenses will be released without bail or pretrial conditions. In more serious cases that meet standards where a person can be held in custody, prosecutors will be required to request a person be detained and make arguments on public safety and the risk of flight.

In cases where prosecutors seek to hold a person in custody, the defendant’s attorneys will be given more time to prepare for the hearing. The decision on whether a person should continue to be held in custody pretrial can also be revisited by the court at future hearings.

Cook County had planned to move forward with bail reform on Jan. 1 until the Justices halted its implementation. “I feel very confident that we will be ready to go in 60 days,” Pretrial Division Presiding Judge Marubio said Tuesday.

Until Sept. 18, judges will continue to set bail in cases in Cook County, just as they had been doing up until Dec. 31, Marubio said.

DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin, the lone Republican appointee on a state Senate panel that recommended revisions to the bail reforms in the SAFE-T Act last fall, said changes adopted in the December veto session largely addressed “glaring deficiencies” and expanded judges’ discretion to detain defendants who might pose a danger to the public if released.

Berlin did not join the lawsuit that led to Supreme Court case because of the potential conflict with his role on the panel.

“At this point, I would say (the public) shouldn’t be panicked,” Berlin told the Sun-Times. “With the amendment (passed in December) I am confident that violent criminals are going to be detained.”

Berlin said he expected an influx of defendants seeking hearings when the law takes effect, and that his office will petition judges to hold any person his office deems a threat to public safety.

He also noted that even multimillion-dollar bail amounts are not a guarantee of safety. “I have seen people put up $200,000 and walk out of jail on a $2 million bond,” he said.

Berlin said he and his fellow state’s attorneys planned a conference call Tuesday afternoon to discuss options, but personally he felt that another lawsuit was not likely. “I think we need to move forward with the General Assembly and use the legislative process,” he said. “At this point, I’m not sure legally what else there is to do.”

Berlin said he would advocate for changes that would make the Act resemble bail statutes in New Jersey, which largely did away with cash bail in 2017. New Jersey’s laws allow judges to set a cash bail when prosecutors show “clear and convincing evidence” people are likely to flee, threaten or intimidate others if set free before trial, or otherwise pose a threat to safety.

Harold Krent, a professor at IIT-Kent Law School who has studied the separation of powers, agreed there likely is no path for further challenges in the courts.

“There is no traditional injury they can point to that is going to get them through the doors of federal court,” he said. “This is a case where a state law was found constitutional under the state constitution. I’m not sure what their federal claim would be.”

The bail reforms were just one part of the SAFE-T Act, some of which have already taken effect. Other measures include requiring all police departments to equip officers with body-worn cameras by 2025, expanding services for victims of crimes and changing how people who are incarcerated are counted for redistricting maps.

Many Republican candidates made the SAFE-T Act a focus of law-and-order campaigning last year, but Democrats held off most challengers in what was expected to be a bruising midterm election for the party across the country and even expanded their majority on the state Supreme Court.

The elections of Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien were believed to be significant to preserving Illinois’ strong abortion protections, as well as the future of the SAFE-T Act. Both Justices sided with the majority of the court.

Justices Lisa Holder White and David Overstreet, the high court’s only Republicans, joined in the dissent.

[garudabluffs]

Illinois judge removes Trump from ballot because of “insurrectionist ban”

Feb 28, 2024 #CNN#News

CNN's Katelyn Polantz breaks down the surprise move by an Illinois judge to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's ballot. CNN's Erin Burnett discusses with Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA).

3,337 Comments

[attactica]

ILLINOIS GUN BAN | WILL IT ACTUALLY WORK? | WHAT NEXT???

[reasonsforhope]

It was a really, really good political news day today in the US (4/4/23)

For anyone who hasn't heard, not only did Trump get arrested, but also:

-We found out that the legal case against him in this prosecution (stormy daniels hush money case) is SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than people had speculated. Like, wow do they have receipts.

-In fact, the evidence was so entirely there that the new question on prime time news (well, at least on msnbc lol) is "Hey, why didn't the federal courts prosecute him for this already???)

-Trump FAILED UTTERLY in his attempts to rally mass protests and demands for "death and destruction" if he was arrested. There was no violence at the arrest at all, and as for Trump supporters? They failed to show up in any kind of numbers--reportedly only about a hundred people were protesting the arrest

-We (aka Judge Janet Protasiewicz) WON what is widely considered to be the most consequential election of 2023, a Wisconsin state supreme court election that handed control of the state supreme court to the left

-Because of that election win, it is now extremely likely that abortion will be legal in Wisconsin, and that Wisconsin won't be able to throw out electors in the 2024 presidential election

-ALSO bc of this, Wisconsin, the most gerrymandered state in the country, will probably get nonpartisan, accurate maps, which COULD FLIP THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES in 2024

-In Chicago, Brandon Johnson, union organizer and former teacher, won the election for mayor, in a decisive win progressives, esp for meaningful criminal justice reform and investment in mental health (whereas the other guy was campaigning on hiring hundreds of new cops and being super tough on crime)

[royfmc]

Better Government Association Statement: Supreme Court FOIA Ruling Limits Transparency; Significantly Broadens Exemptions to FOIA

A unanimous Illinois Supreme Court ruling yesterday in a case called Chapman v. Chicago reverses a lower court’s ruling and blocks plaintiff Matt Chapman’s open records request for information from the City of Chicago’s Department of Finance. The court’s ruling undermines the public’s right to know about the workings of government and is a threat to research, journalism and the public…

[msfangirlgonewild]

What the fuck is wrong with the SCOTUS? Shame on them 😡

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Illinois Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Democratic-backed ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity magazines enacted after a deadly mass shooting in Chicago's Highland Park suburb in 2022 that left seven people dead and dozens of others wounded.

The state's high court in a 4-3 vote rejected arguments by a group of plaintiffs led by a Republican state Representative Dan Caulkins, that the ban violated the Illinois Constitution by not applying the law equally to all citizens.

Democratic Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker in a statement called the ruling "a win for advocates, survivors, and families alike because it preserves this nation-leading legislation to combat gun violence and save countless lives."

In January, he signed into law the measure, the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans the sale and distribution of many kinds of high-powered semiautomatic "assault weapons," including AK-47 and AR-15 rifles, and large-capacity magazines.

Justice Elizabeth Rochford, a Democrat, wrote that the constitution's equal protection and special legislation clauses did not bar the state's legislature from treating certain citizens differently than others by exempting them from the law.

Those exemptions applied to people who complete firearms training while employed in law enforcement, the military and private security and individuals who already owned the prohibited guns before the ban was enacted.

"The Act attempts to balance public safety against the expertise of the trained professionals and the expectation interests of the grandfathered individuals," Rochford wrote in an opinion that was joined by three of her fellow Democratic justices.

The ruling reversed a lower-court judge's ruling in the plaintiffs' favor. Justices Lisa Holder White and David Overstreet, both Republicans, and Mary Kay O’Brien, a Democrat, dissented.

The plaintiffs also argued the law violated the right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. But Rochford said the plaintiffs waived that argument by not raising it at the lower-court level.

That Second Amendment argument is central to separate ongoing federal lawsuits also challenging Illinois' law.

The conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court last year in striking down New York state gun limits on carrying concealed firearms announced a new legal standard requiring firearms restrictions to be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

That ruling has made it more difficult for lower courts to uphold new or existing gun regulations, several of which have been declared unconstitutional.

[usauthoritarianism]

This is a Chicago Jump Out Squad

In DC this sort of thing is normal too.

People need to understand. I have spent my adult life in driving distance between the urban centers where this slave catcher ass policing style is the reality, and the prison(s) where massive prisoner populations are rented out to governments and corporations for literal pennies to the inmates.

-and this article is from 2014

[tomorrowusa]

VOTE!!!  🗳 ☒ 🇺🇸

Tuesday April 4th is Election Day in at least 8 US states for an assortment of offices. Get more details here.

The most notable ones but NOT the only ones...

Wisconsin – two biggies: • Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. • Special election to fill vacancy in Wisconsin Senate District 8. 

Illinois: • Mayor of Chicago (runoff).

Colorado: • Mayors of Denver and Colorado Springs. 

Your vote cancels out the vote of a fundamentalist or MAGA zombie.

Never take an election for granted. Opinion polls don’t vote, people vote.

[horrorhouse]

God bless The Wieners Circle in Chicago, Illinois.

[reasonsforhope]

"New Mexico Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a bill into law Friday that prohibits sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison without eligibility for parole.

Under SB64, the No Life Sentences for Juveniles Act, offenders who committed crimes when they were younger than 18 and received life sentences will be eligible for parole hearings 15 to 25 years into their sentences, depending on the conviction, according to the state’s legislative website.

The legislation also applies to juveniles who were found guilty of first-degree murder even if they were tried as adults. If any juvenile offender is denied parole, they will “be entitled to a parole hearing at two-year intervals,” according to the bill.

New Mexico joins a slew of states that have enacted similar sentencing measures following a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that made it easier for those who committed their crimes when they were younger than 18 to be sentenced to prison for life without parole.

“When children commit serious crimes, they should be held accountable, but they should not spend their entire lives in prison without a chance for redemption,” said Democratic state Sen. Kristina Ortez, one of the bill’s sponsors, in a Facebook post...

The legislation passed the state Senate in late February with bipartisan support, and passed in the House earlier this week along party lines.

Illinois also passed a bill last month banning juvenile life sentences without parole. At least 24 other states and Washington, DC, have similar laws, according to the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, a nonprofit advocacy organization."

-via CNN, 3/18/23