* Supreme Court Justices Freeman and Burke voted with the majority, but wrote what otherwise looks like a stinging dissent. Among other things, they claimed that the Rahm Emanuel residency ruling opens up a big can of worms, including for city workers forced to reside in Chicago…
Because the court holds that residency has one settled meaning, and that meaning rests on a person’s intent, today’s decision will have implications for residency requirements for in-state tuition, residency requirements for municipal employees such as police officers and firefighters, residency requirements for school districts and other similar situations. This court should be prepared to address those issues as firmly and expeditiously as we have done today.
Does it? Rushed decisions in the heat of the moment can most certainly have unintended consequences. The Supremes pulled a mini Bush v. Gore at the tail end of their opinion yesterday by saying that this opinion should not be construed to have any impact on anything other than the topic at hand…
So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear. This court’s decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous.
Former Gov. Jim Thompson was right about the Rahm residency case this week, and he’s probably right about this topic as well…
“City employees do not have a constitutional right to a city job, so the city can make reasonable rules and regulations about where their employees should live,” [said Thompson].
* The two justices also complained about the tone of yesterday’s ruling, the appellate dissent and resulting Chicago newspaper editorials…
The dissenting justice below accused the appellate court majority of engaging in a “pure flight of fancy”… of “conjur[ing]” its result “out of thin air”… and of having a “careless disregard for the law.” The dissenting justice also stated that the result was a “figment of the majority’s imagination”, based on the “whims of two judges. In other words, the dissenting justice accused the majority of basing its decision on something other than the law.
When the appellate court’s decision was announced, these accusations were repeatedly emphasized in the media (see, e.g., Judicial Arrogance, Chicago Tribune, Jan. 25, 2011, at 14; Rahm Ruling a Disservice to Voters, Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 25, 2011, at 21), thereby fueling the perception that the appellate court’s decision was, in fact, based on extrajudicial considerations. The tone taken by the majority today, and the refusal to acknowledge conflicting case law, unfairly perpetuates that notion.
The appellate dissent and the majority Supreme Court opinion were both, indeed, quite harsh. While unusual, it’s not unprecedented. Take a look at Justice Karmeier’s dissent in the medical malpractice ruling a year or two ago.
And Justice Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, may still be enraged that his former team lost the NFC championship game last Sunday [/snark].
* But the concurring justices are a bit light on their own reasoning…
Rather, we would answer the narrow question that was actually raised by the objectors in this case: Does a person lose his permanent abode if the adobe is rented during the relevant residency period? To that question we answer “no.” For that reason alone, we join in the judgment of the majority.
But why do they say “no”? No reason supplied. Weird.
* 2 justices to majority: pipe down
* Court Allows Emanuel on Ballot for Chicago Mayor
* Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Emanuel
* Rahm Emanuel stays on Chicago ballot
* Rahm’s Opponents Weigh in on Supreme Court Decision
* Brown: Ballot battle turned Rahm into sympathetic figure
* CST Editorial: Ruling a victory for democracy
* Tribune editorial: And now, the election