6 Comments - RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 3:11 pm: == Plaintiffs say because Gov. Rauner and agencies entered into contracts knowing there weren’t appropriations, there’s no sovereign immunity. == Nice to see them making the “deliberate fraud” argument. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 3:25 pm: The Court of Claims argument is odd. Even if the Court of Claims ruled in their favor they still aren’t going to be paid without an appropriation for the Court of Claims award. - Downstate Illinois - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 3:34 pm: They shouldn’t be paid until there’s a budget. The state constitution should trump contracts with the state. Likewise for state workers. Every time a judge intervenes to “protect” someone it just lets off the pressure for Springfield to do something. - Pawn - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 4:15 pm: Downstate. There is a separate clause in the Constitution that says the state should not impair contracts. - Whatever - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 5:17 pm: Pawn — the contracts clause could prevent the state from enacting a provision prohibiting payments without appropriations and trying to apply that provision to a pre-existing contract. It wouldn’t prevent such a clause from applying to any contract entered into after it became effective. The “deliberate fraud” argument is a little shakey, too, because the existence of the requirement for appropriations is hardly a secret and is actually mentioned in many contracts. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 7:08 pm: Odd that LeChien didn’t wear a robe. Was the AC broken or does he just not take the matter seriously? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.