* Illinois Supreme Court…

Defendant, Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County (Sheriff), instituted employment disciplinary proceedings against plaintiffs, Matthew Goral, Kevin Badon, Michael Mendez, Milan Stojkovic, David Evans III, Frank Donis, and Lashon Shaffer, who were employed as officers for the Sheriff. The disciplinary charges against plaintiffs were filed with the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board (Merit Board) pursuant to section 3-7011 of the Counties Code (Code). Plaintiffs filed motions with the Merit Board to dismiss the disciplinary charges against them. While the administrative proceedings were pending, plaintiffs filed an action in the circuit court of Cook County for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against the Sheriff, Cook County, the Merit Board, and Toni Preckwinkle, president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners (collectively, defendants). In that lawsuit, plaintiffs asserted that the Merit Board was not legally constituted because several of its members had been appointed to and/or served terms that did not comply with the statutory requirements set forth in section 3-7002 of the Code.

On defendants’ motions, the circuit court of Cook County dismissed plaintiffs’ action on the ground that they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The appellate court reversed in part, holding inter alia that, since plaintiffs had challenged the authority of the Merit Board to address the charges, the “authority” exception to the exhaustion requirement applied. We allowed defendants’ petition for leave to appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. […]

Defendants next contend that allowing widespread exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine would thwart the legislative intent of consigning certain disputes to agency specialists and would create “unworkable chaos” at the Merit Board. Defendants maintain that the decision by the appellate court imposes fact-finding burdens on the circuit courts that “fly in the face” of legislation about the role of courts in reviewing agency actions. According to defendants, the result reached by the appellate court would subject administrative agencies throughout Illinois to a wave of declaratory or injunctive lawsuits based on interlocutory procedural challenges to individual agency hearing officers. Defendants further contend that allowing plaintiffs to “skip over” administrative processes by filing claims in the circuit court is the opposite of judicial economy and efficiency. We do not agree. […]

Specifically, Rule 3.1 provides that “[a] lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” We are confident that the bar will adhere to that proscription. Thus, there are adequate safeguards in place to protect against the chaos that defendants allege.

The 4-3 majority apparently didn’t consider Darren Bailey’s example.

* Sun-Times…

A narrowly decided state supreme court ruling Thursday could potentially leave Cook County taxpayers on the hook for millions in backpay for sheriff’s officers who were suspended while facing disciplinary proceedings. […]

The sheriff’s office bemoaned the decision, saying it will significantly increase the time it takes to discipline an officer for misconduct and make it more difficult to fire bad officers.

“Today’s Illinois Supreme Court decision is a catastrophic blow to law enforcement accountability,” sheriff’s office spokesman Matthew Walberg said in an emailed statement. “The decision rewards employees who engaged in criminal, unethical and despicable conduct at the expense of Illinois taxpayers.”