* If you need background, here you go…
Click here for the Illinois Supreme Court’s order.
* The order was in response to this filing by DuPage County State’s Attorney Bob Berlin (R) and Kane County State’s Attorney Jamie Mosser (D)…
Regardless of who is ultimately bound by the decision of the circuit court and the propriety of the decision on the merits, it is inevitable that on 12:01 a.m., January 1, 2023, there will be disparate methods of pretrial procedures occurring in jurisdictions across the State. Some jurisdictions consider themselves bound by the order of the Kankakee Circuit Court and proceed pursuant to current cash bail provisions; others will not and will proceed pursuant to the provisions of the Pretrial Fairness Act.
Movants are particularly sensitive to this problem as they have under their jurisdiction municipalities that span jurisdictions. For example, Naperville spans DuPage and Will Counties. Will County was a party to the lawsuit in Kankakee County, DuPage County was not. It is reasonable to anticipate that the counties will proceed differently on January 1, 2023. And Aurora spans four counties – DuPage, Kane, Kendall and Will – two of which were parties to the lawsuit and two of which were not. It is not an overstatement to describe the situation as chaotic.
Upon information and belief, at least three temporary restraining orders from counties not parties to the lawsuit have been granted.
These orders maintain the current status quo and do not allow the Pretrial Fairness Act to go into effect in those counties. […]
This Court should exercise its supervisory authority to enter an order sufficient to maintain consistent pretrial procedures because without such an order, defendants in different jurisdictions will be subject to different treatment upon arrest and throughout pretrial proceedings, creating an equal protection problem for citizens across the state.
* OK, let’s back up a bit. NBC Chicago…
Kankakee County State’s Attorney James Rowe argued the law was too broad to meet so-called “single subject rule “of the Illinois Constitution. He said it also violated a constitutional provision that says “all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties,” insisting that Illinois judges should be allowed to set cash bail.
“The legislature, again, has put their hands on your gavel,” Rowe told Judge Thomas Cunnington.
* NEXSTAR on Dec. 29…
Supporters of the SAFE-T Act are confident the Illinois Supreme Court will overturn the ruling, and cash bail will eventually be eliminated.
“While I am disappointed in the decision by the plaintiffs’ preferred trial court, I remain confident we will ultimately prevail on appeal,” House Speaker Emmanuel “Chris” Welch (D-Hillside) said in a statement.
The appeal process could take some time, and in the mean time, the ruling is causing confusion for the 37 counties that were not involved in the suit.
* Tribune after the Supreme Court stepped in…
Lake County State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart, who supports the elimination of cash bail, said he was disappointed in Cunnington’s decision but said he understands why the Supreme Court ruled that uniformity in Illinois must exist. He’s argued that while the bail system can keep poor, nonviolent defendants locked up because they can’t afford to make bail, the system allows dangerous criminals to be released pending trial if they have the financial means.
“Lake County was ready to start arguing (Sunday) that violent offenders shouldn’t be able to use cash to buy their way out,” he said in a text message to the Tribune. “A few days ago, one of our defendants charged with possessing dozens of weapons and resisting law enforcement posted $75,000.
“Illinois will be safer when we join the federal courts in eliminating access to money as a factor in determining who is released,” Rinehart continued. “We were ready and will be ready when the Supreme Court reinstates (these provisions) later this year.”
In Cook County, officials were prepared to move ahead with the reform measures Sunday, even as the legal wrangling persisted.
* CBS 2…
“It wasn’t surprising,” [Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell Jr.] said. “There is a real value in ensuring the entire state is working off the same playbook.” […]
“It would not make sense with one courtroom over here, they were using cash bond – and another courtroom over there, they weren’t,” Mitchell said.
Mitchell calls the statewide playbook critical. So until the state Supreme Court reviews the law, it is as if the law never existed – and cash bond continues.
* WCIA…
[Champaign County State’s Attorney Julia Rietz] said the court’s decision isn’t unexpected.
“It is a good thing, because we can’t have two different systems operating across the state,” Rietz said.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:09 am:
== For example, Naperville spans DuPage and Will Counties. ==
Another opportune time for me to state how stupid I think Illinois is when it comes to political subdivisions. Too many of them, weird overlaps, and none of the borders make sense.
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:13 am:
Because statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality, the Court should have done the opposite: stayed the circuit court’s order and let the statute go into effect in all 102 counties.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:34 am:
It was good that the Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the PFA until review. I do not understand why the PFA opponents could not have raised these challenges in a more timely manner. The grounds always existed, and the opponents knew the law would become effective January 1, 2023. They always had standing.
- PublicServant - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:30 am:
Was the Cunningham order’s timing, days before the law was set to go into effect, just the natural result of the litigation taking time to wind its way through the system, or was it purposefully done to tweak the libs, and score a temporary victory for opponents of the law?
- Jocko - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:39 am:
All this posturing reminds me of the hysteria following legalized marijuana. Since 2014, did New Jersey and Alaska turn into dens of crime and no one told me?
- Bezerk - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:47 am:
Supporters of the SAFE-T Act are confident the Illinois Supreme Court will overturn the ruling, and cash bail will eventually be eliminated.
Ummmm. Dem court, dem legislation..how you think they voters is going to go? Yes courts are mostly partisan these days.
- Jilted - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:50 am:
It will take a year of two to crunch numbers but if crime numbers dont dramatic ally improve under the safety act the pitch forks and torches will be out in full force
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:30 pm:
The Democratic Illinois Supreme Court should not be blinded by partisanship but by a commitment to upholding the the Illinois Constitution regardless of which party passed the law
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:01 pm:
===but by a commitment to upholding the the Illinois Constitution regardless of which party passed the law===
What specifically is unconstitutional?
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:11 pm:
LP, elections have consequences. Just as the country has been subjected to Dobbs and other erroneous decisions from Republican SCOTUS appointees, so shall your ilk be subjected to decisions that you disagree with.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:17 pm:
Judge Thomas Cunnington ruled in a 33 page opinion the Illinois constitution requires the separation of powers and the “appropriateness of bail resides in the judicial branch and cannot be ended by legislative fiat”
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Illinois Supreme Court upholds tbe law that it is challenged by the US Supreme Court.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:22 pm:
===Judge Thomas Cunnington ruled in a 33 page opinion the Illinois constitution requires the separation of powers and the “appropriateness of bail resides in the judicial branch and cannot be ended by legislative fiat”===
What is the definition of bail.
I believe Rich revisited this definition.
Should we go over that definition here?
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:25 pm:
=== The Democratic Illinois Supreme Court should not be blinded by partisanship but by a commitment to upholding the the (sic) Illinois Constitution regardless of which party passed the law ===
True, as should the local judges who are the initial triers of fact. (Or makers of fiction in this case.)
However, this judge has chosen to a ridiculous interpretation of the IL Constitution. If bail has to be $, why can defendants be released on their own recognizance now under IL law? Furthermore, how can existing bail laws be constitutional, although this guy considers the SAFE-T Act to be a usurpation of the powers of the judiciary. Even this partisan judge didn’t go along with the SA’s procedural arguments. (The enrolled bill rule is strong with the courts.)
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:26 pm:
SCOTUS doesn’t challenge laws lol.
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:30 pm:
Further the Illinois Supreme Court has the final say on the interpretation of the state constitution.
- Deputy Sheriff - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:35 pm:
Unlawful Restraint is a non-detainable offense of the SAFE-T Act. What a wonderful world we live in!
- Amalia - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 5:01 pm:
really good to have uniformity of application of the law so smart to stay this. the tweaking process also gives everyone more time to think about how things are going in all facets of the criminal justice process. you can state that murder numbers are down, but wow, those other crime stats detailed in the Sun Times. I’m also fascinated by the Gierach theory that taking away weed sales means criminals are looking elsewhere to make money. fascinating.
- Rabid - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:18 pm:
The powers that be want bail. Is the argument for themselves or the accused ?