* From November of 2017…

Today, the Thomas More Society filed a taxpayer lawsuit against State of Illinois officials in a counterattack against House Bill 40, which requires public funding of tens of thousands of elective abortions. […]

The complaint levels two challenges against HB 40. First, the General Assembly has not set aside funds to pay for HB 40’s tens of thousands of elective abortions, and there’s no money available to pay for those abortions and still be within the Balanced Budget requirements of the Illinois Constitution. Second, despite efforts to make HB 40 effective January 1, 2018, it cannot come into effect until June 1, because it did not pass out of the Senate until September 25, 2017. The Illinois Constitution imposes a May 31 cut-off date for General Assembly action for bills to go into effect faster.

* January of 2018…

A new law allowing public funding of abortion in Illinois will take effect as scheduled on January 1. That’s after a judge on Thursday ruled against anti-abortion groups who’d sued to block it.

* 4th District Appellate Court today…

The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction under the political-question doctrine, to determine whether the General Assembly failed to appropriate funds and adopt a revenue estimate to cover the cost of services under HB 40; and (2) the implementation of HB 40 on January 1, 2018, was not improper because the bill passed both houses of the General Assembly by May 10, 2017.

Go read the whole thing if you’re interested. But this was a longshot case from the beginning.

First, medical procedures covered by Medicaid and state employee insurance aren’t individually appropriated.

Second, notice how the court declined to weigh in on the need for an official revenue estimate - an issue that’s been pushed hard by the Illinois Policy Institute….

Before we turn to the political-question doctrine, we note a problem in the way plaintiffs couch their arguments before this court. Plaintiffs assert they simply want to know if the General Assembly complied with the revenue-estimate and appropriations requirements of the constitution. However, absent from the constitution is any language imposing an obligation on the General Assembly to develop a revenue estimate. Plaintiffs argue the language of the COGFA Act, read in conjunction with the constitution, imposes such a duty. However, the constitution and the COGFA Act are separate. We are reluctant to read the language of the COGFA Act into the constitution. […]

By its plain terms, the constitution requires only that the General Assembly refrain from appropriating funds in excess of the amount estimated by the General Assembly. Here, the constitution fails to provide discoverable and manageable standards illustrating how a court is to go about determining whether the General Assembly did in fact refrain from appropriating funds in excess of funds estimated by the General Assembly. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VIII, § 2(b). Plaintiffs also fail to point to any such standards. […]

When resolving the mandatory or directory question, a statute is mandatory where the legislature imposes specific consequences in the event of noncompliance. Id. at 514. On the other hand, a statute is directory where “no particular consequence flows from non[]compliance.” […]

Section 4(a) of the COGFA Act does not contain any consequences for the General Assembly’s failure to adopt a revenue estimate by joint resolution.

* And third, the bill passed way before the May 31st deadline. A parliamentary hold was placed on the legislation until it was withdrawn in September. The governor signed it a few days later. The courts here are loathe to adjudicate legislative rules and the appellate justices upheld that tradition today.

…Adding… From the attorney general’s office…

We are pleased the court rejected the plaintiffs’ attempts to prevent some women from accessing health care services, including reproductive health care services.