|
 After almost two years of dealing with COVID-19, three of Gov.
J.B. Pritzker’s executive orders, along with Illinois Department of Public
Health and Illinois State Board of Education emergency rules, have been
challenged in lawsuits filed by parents and teachers in school districts across
Illinois.
Those mandates created layers of litigation and arguments that can be confusing.
But here is what you need to know about what has happened so far, what the state
is arguing before the Illinois Supreme Court, what the state fails to
acknowledge in its arguments and what could happen next.
What has happened in the litigation so far?
Four cases filed by parents and teachers across the state were consolidated and
are now making their way through Illinois state courts:
Circuit court
On Feb. 4, Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Raylene Grischow issued a
temporary restraining order on the mandates requiring masks in schools, weekly
testing of unvaccinated school employees and the quarantining of students and
teachers who are “close contacts” of confirmed or probable COVID-19 cases. The
court also declared the IDPH and ISBE rules “null and void.” The state appealed
the order to the Fourth District Appellate Court.
State lawmakers
On Feb. 15, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules of the Illinois General
Assembly voted 9-0-2 against extending IDPH’s emergency rules to enforce state
mask, vaccine and testing mandates.
Appellate court
On Feb. 17, the Fourth District Appellate Court ruled the legislative
committee’s action made the appeal moot, as a rule at the heart of the case is
no longer in effect. It did not decide whether Grischow’s order was proper in
the first place.
Illinois Supreme Court
The state is now asking the Illinois Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the
appellate court’s decision.
What is the state arguing before the Illinois Supreme Court?
The state has filed multiple written documents with the Illinois Supreme Court.
The most pertinent are the following:
A petition for leave to appeal
The Illinois Supreme Court does not have to hear a party’s appeal of a lower
court decision. Litigants wanting to appeal to the state’s highest court must
file a “petition for leave,” asking the court to hear the appeal. The court then
grants or denies leave, or permission, to appeal.
Along with its petition asking the court to consider its appeal, the state is
asking the court to vacate, or reverse, the temporary restraining order. It
claims in its petition that the plaintiffs “have no right in need of
protection.”
In short, the state is arguing: 1) the appellate court was wrong in ruling the
lawmaker committee’s action made the initial appeal moot; 2) the circuit court
was wrong in issuing the temporary restraining order; and 3) the order should be
vacated.
A motion for expedited appeal
The state is arguing the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision on whether it will
accept the appeal should be expedited, as should any subsequent proceedings.
[to top of second column] |
The state wants the following timeline:
-
March 4 – due date for plaintiffs’ written
answer
-
March 11 – due date for the state’s written
reply
-
Week of March 20 – oral argument before the
Illinois Supreme Court.
If that specific timeline is not granted, the state
is requesting any timeline that would permit oral argument the week
of March 20.
The state admits relevant law, before being amended
by IDPH without legislative action, requires “a circuit court
hearing within 48 hours” if there is an order for quarantine or
isolation. In other words, what the state wants is the ability to
unilaterally amend inconvenient statutes previously passed by the
elected General Assembly under the guise of “public health.” It
seeks that power regardless of being two years into a pandemic, in
pursuit of “unlimited authority to do whatever is necessary.”
A motion to stay Grischow’s order while the appeal proceeds
Finally, the state is arguing that the temporary restraining order
should be stayed while the Illinois Supreme Court considers the
appeal. The request includes many of the same claims the state
argues in its other filings.
If granted, the order essentially would be reversed while the appeal
is pending.
What did the state leave out of its arguments?
The filings above never refer to the current rate of COVID-19 cases,
hospitalizations or any other current metrics. The closest the state
comes to acknowledging the current status of the COVID-19 pandemic
is to claim while “Illinois saw a relative decline in cases in the
summer of 2021, cases throughout the state increased in September
2021 and again in December 2021 and January 2022.”
The state ignores altogether the falling case rates in February
2022, including in the two weeks since the temporary restraining
order was entered. Yet the state disingenuously claims the TRO has
“exacerbated the public-health effects of the COVID-19 crisis”
without providing any recent metrics or relevant facts.
The state also omits that Pritzker is lifting the indoor mask
mandate Feb. 28 – except in schools. Instead, the state argues the
TRO “impairs all defendants’ ability to respond to the COVID-19
pandemic and thus exacerbates the effects of that pandemic for all
Illinois residents.” It then argues children are at risk of
spreading COVID-19 to community members. Yet the state ignores it
has dropped mask mandates for those same community members.
The state’s skirting of these relevant issues reveals a lack of
sincerity in its arguments, particularly for any need for an
expedited appeal.
What could happen next?
That depends on the Illinois Supreme Court. The court likely will
first decide the state’s request for expedited appeal and determine
the timeline of the appeal moving forward.
From there, the plaintiffs will have a chance to respond to the
state’s petition for appeal and its request that lower court
decisions be overturned. Then the state will have another chance to
reply to the plaintiffs. As of Feb. 24, the plaintiffs had not yet
filed a response to the state’s petition and motions.
Once all of the parties’ written arguments are filed, the Illinois
Supreme Court will rule on whether it will take the state’s appeal
at all. If it decides to hear the appeal, that decision may also
include its ultimate decision on the mootness of the case and the
validity of the TRO. |
