Illinois’ gun ban in front of state Supreme Court Tuesday
Send a link to a friend
[May 16, 2023]
By Greg Bishop | The Center Square
(The Center Square) – Illinois’ gun and magazine ban will be the focus
of an Illinois Supreme Court hearing Tuesday in Springfield.
After the ban on more than 170 semi-automatic firearms was enacted Jan.
10, lawsuits were filed in both state and federal court.
In federal court, the challenges center around the Second Amendment
right to keep and bear arms. Several of those cases were consolidated
Friday and are pending in the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is also considering an
emergency injunction against the law filed by plaintiffs in a case from
Naperville. Through a letter from the Illinois solicitor general Friday,
Illinois notified Barrett of the expedited hearing schedule in the
appellate court.
“Attached please find an order by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit entered [Friday], which: 1) set an expedited
briefing schedule for five pending appeals also involving Second
Amendment challenges to the Protect Illinois Communities Act and
scheduled oral argument in those appeals and the appeal in the
above-referenced case for June 29, 2023; and 2) extended the stay of the
preliminary injunction entered in Barnett v. Raoul, No. 3:23-cv-209,
until all six appeals are resolved,” the letter said.
In state court, challenges focus on allegations the law violates equal
protection rights because the gun ban does not apply to police, retired
police and others in the law enforcement and security sectors.
Attorney Jerry Stocks secured temporary restraining orders protecting
named plaintiffs out of Macon County, including state Rep. Dan Caulkins,
R-Decatur. The state directly appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court
after the Illinois’ Fifth District Appellate Court said a separate but
similar challenge had a likelihood of advancing on the merits. Stocks
said that, among other issues, the case is ripe for the state’s high
court.
“Think about it, we have a majority of the sheriffs, state’s attorneys
saying they won’t enforce, they’re going to nullify a law,” Stocks said
in March. “We have persons, the perspective we have, that consider the
law an extreme encroachment of a fundamental liberty, a fundamental
right.”
Stocks said there are a lot of eyes on the case.
“If the Supreme Court of Illinois wants to dodge confronting the issues
head on, they’re going to find a thousand different reasons to do so,”
Stocks said. “But I think every level of the judiciary that’s
confronting this well recognizes the significance of the case, the
issues presented and the tough decisions they need to make.”
[to top of second column]
|
The exterior of the Illinois Supreme
Court in Springfield - Greg Bishop / The Center Square
The court denied Stocks’ motion for the recusal of Supreme Court
Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary O’Brien. When they were candidates
for the bench last year, the two received hefty campaign contributions
from defendants Gov. J.B. Pritzker and House Speaker Emanuel “Chris”
Welch, D-Hillside. Pritzker dismissed concerns that the contributions
are a conflict of interest.
“If you’re suggesting that the fact that I gave money to let's say the
Democratic Party or the committees that supported candidates means that
everybody who’s received any money has to recuse themselves from
anything to do with the state of Illinois, that’s ridiculous,” Pritzker
said in March. “And I’ve certainly never asked anybody to vote a certain
way or decide on a case a certain way. I would never do that. I never
have and I never will.”
Pritzker gave each of the two then-candidates $1 million. Welch gave
six-figure contributions to each.
In her order denying Stocks’ motion, Rochford said previous precedent
“cautioned that courts must consider whether attacks on a judge’s
impartiality are ‘simply subterfuge to circumvent anticipated adverse
rulings.’”
“Plaintiffs cast sinister aspersions that contributions to my campaign
committee were made to influence the instant litigation,” Rochford said
in April. “Plaintiffs provide no factual basis for those aspersions.”
Stocks stood by his motion.
“The suggestion that as movants raising the issue that we had a burden
of proof to show actual impartiality on the part of the justice is a
contention with which we disagree,” Stocks told The Center Square in an
email. “The decision has been made and we turn to the merits of the
challenge to the facially unconstitutional law. It is premature to
determine the remedy, if any, for the participation of the Justices if
our view is valid.”
The Caulkins v. Pritzker case will be the second case heard Tuesday
beginning at 9 a.m. and streamed at the website IllinoisCourts.gov.
It’s expected the justices will take the case under advisement with a
ruling forthcoming.
Greg Bishop reports on Illinois government and other
issues for The Center Square. Bishop has years of award-winning
broadcast experience and hosts the WMAY Morning Newsfeed out of
Springfield. |