* Fox Illinois…
The Effingham County courtroom was filled on Wednesday at the hearing regarding the new ban on assault weapons.
On Wednesday, January 18th at 11:00 a.m. an emergency hearing was held at the Effingham county court to discuss the lawsuit filed by Former Republican Attorney General Candidate, Tom Devore.
Judge Joshua Morrison listened to arguments from Devore, who was representing several Gun Shops and hundreds of Plaintiffs.
Joshua Morrison. Hmm. Joshua Morrison. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, right…
Fayette County State’s Attorney Joshua Morrison joined the list of State’s Attorneys who have sued Governor Pritzker over the SAFE-T Act.
“After much consideration, I am filing a lawsuit against the SAFE-T Act. As a prosecutor, I believe that this statute unconstitutional on its face and will have far-reaching unintended consequences,” Morrison said.
Joshua Morrison ran for judge last year. He’s brand new on the bench.
So, as state’s attorney, Morrison filed suit (and remains a named plaintiff) on most of the same procedural/constitutional issues that were presented to him this week in DeVore’s lawsuit, which is scheduled to be ruled on today.
* But, wait, that’s not all. From Tom DeVore’s campaign website…
Remember when Governor Pritzker kept issuing all those executive orders during COVID?
State’s Attorney Joshua Morrison pushed back, working with law enforcement to follow the law and ensure that Fayette County residents were able to go to work and to the store without fear that they would be thrown in jail.
He also pushed back on Attorney General Raoul, sending a letter asking if his executive order was even enforceable and how repeatedly issuing orders past the 30 day period was NOT official misconduct by the Governor. Morrison also wanted to know if officials trying to enforce it were committing misconduct because the Executive Orders did not agree with the Public Health statutes.
From Morrison’s letter, which was sent in May of 2020…
And now I understand the sort of questions the judge asked during the hearing earlier in the week when DeVore presented his case. Click here for that.
*** UPDATE 1 *** No surprise here…
Enforcement of Illinois’ gun ban has been temporarily suspended for the 860-plus individuals who sued the state.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the gun and magazine ban into law last week. Tuesday, attorney Thomas DeVore sued in Effingham County state court, arguing the ban is unconstitutional. During an emergency hearing Wednesday, DeVore argued, among other things, that the law violates equal protections by exempting law enforcement officers from the new ban.
A judge issued the TRO Friday evening. The case advances pending an expected appeal by the governor and legislative leaders. A preliminary injunction hearing is set for 9:30 a.m. on Feb. 1.
Judge Morrison’s opinion is here.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Press release…
Governor JB Pritzker issued the following statement on the decision by Effingham County Judge Morrison on the Protect Illinois Communities Act:
“This decision is not surprising. Although disappointing, it is the initial result we’ve seen in many cases brought by plaintiffs whose goal is to advance ideology over public safety. We are well aware that this is only the first step in defending this important legislation. I remain confident that the courts will uphold the constitutionality of Illinois’ law, which aligns with the eight other states with similar laws and was written in collaboration with lawmakers, advocates, and legal experts.
Illinoisans have a right to feel safe in their front yards, at school, while eating at bars and restaurants or celebrating with their family and friends. The Protect Illinois Communities Act takes weapons of war and mass destruction off the street while allowing law-abiding gun owners to retain their collections. I look forward to the next steps in this case and receiving the decision this case merits.”
*** UPDATE 3 *** Press release…
Senate President Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) issued the following statement after an Effingham County judge granted a Temporary Restraining Order against the assault weapons ban that became law earlier this month:
“We passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act to get dangerous weapons off the street and create a safer state. This ruling will be appealed. We look forward to our day in court to zealously advocate for our neighbors who are weary of the gun violence epidemic.”
*** UPDATE 4 *** Press release…
Speaker Welch’s Statement on Decision in Protect Illinois Communities Act Lawsuit
“Far too many lives have been lost because of senseless gun violence, and people have had enough. They’ve told us through marches, at committee hearings, and at the ballot box – and our law to get weapons of war off our streets delivered on their call.
“We’ve also seen that those who put extreme ideology ahead of the common good can attempt to slow change, but they cannot stop it.
“While I’m disappointed in this decision by the plaintiff’s preferred court, this decision will be reviewed and I’m confident we will ultimately prevail.”
…Adding… GPAC…
Today, the Gun Violence Prevention PAC (G-PAC), the state’s leading gun safety organization, released a statement from its CEO Kathleen Sances following a judge’s decision to grant a temporary restraining order against Illinois’ new state-wide assault weapon and large-capacity magazines ban.
“The judge’s ruling today is disappointing and makes light of the gun violence impacting Illinois. The fact remains – this is a pivotal moment for our state. A strong and diverse movement for gun safety is proving that we can wrestle power from the gun lobby, and ensure that our state prioritizes public safety over profits. The ban on assault weapons, large-capacity magazines is proof of this change in our status quo.
“This request for a temporary restraining order and other frivolous lawsuits are on brand for the gun lobby. They’re not kicking up dust to protect anyone’s rights, except their own right to fill up their coffers at the expense of Black and Brown lives and those of innocent children. We see through their greed, and we will not allow it to rule our laws and lives. We are a proud movement of gun safety advocates, survivors, lawmakers and concerned citizens, and we will continue to fight to save lives from this man-made epidemic.”
*** UPDATE 5 *** From AG Raoul’s office…
We disagree with the court’s decision. We have filed a notice of appeal and will ask the Appellate Court to reverse and vacate the TRO.
Can’t wait to see Justice McHaney’s opinion on that /s
…Adding… Everytown…
Everytown for Gun Safety and the Illinois chapter of Moms Demand Action, a part of Everytown for Gun Safety’s grassroots network, released the following statement regarding the temporary restraining order issued by a state court judge against the Protect Illinois Communities Act, a critical gun violence prevention legislative package signed into law by Governor J.B. Pritzker earlier this month.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s decision which focused on meritless claims of procedural defects in the passage of the law and included a gross misreading and misapplication of the recent U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting the Second Amendment,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “We expect Attorney General Kwame Raoul to be successful in his appeal and in defending this life-saving law against further unfounded legal challenges.”
The omnibus package includes legislation to prohibit assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, rapid-fire devices that dramatically increase the rate of fire of semi-automatic firearms, facilitate better implementation and efficacy of Illinois’s Firearm Restraining Order (FRO) law, and address illegal gun trafficking in the state. The package was introduced following a year that saw at least 26 mass shootings across the country, including one in Highland Park, where seven people were shot and killed and an additional 48 people were wounded at a July Fourth parade by a shooter using a high capacity assault weapon.
…Adding… ISRA…
“The ISRA applauds Judge Joshua Morrison’s ruling this afternoon. This is a clear indication from the court that the General Assembly and Governor Pritzker rammed this law through improperly. The ISRA firmly believes the law is an infringement on all law-abiding residents’ 2nd Amendment rights. We look forward to the proceedings in our federal case, and we will be keeping a close eye on any other cases as well.”
Richard Pearson Executive Director
* Press release…
The Illinois Freedom Caucus today is issuing the following statement on Fourth District Circuit Court Judge Joshua Morrison’s ruling approving a Temporary Restraining Order for the plaintiffs challenging Illinois new weapons ban and gun registry law.
“Today is a significant victory for the rights of free and honest citizens. There are numerous Constitutional issues with not only the law itself but also in the process involving how this legislation became law. The fact that a Temporary Restraining Order was granted to the plaintiffs in this case underscores the Constitutional issues with this new law.
In his ruling, Judge Morrison states, ‘This Court finds that, due to the blatant disregard for Constitutional Law, the Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.’
We agree with the Judge’s decision and we warned the backers of this legislation of the Constitutional concerns that are apparent to anyone with even a basic understanding of our Constitution. This is a first and significant step in what will be a long court process but in the end, we anticipate this new law will be found to be unconstitutional and a violation of the oath of office on the part of every legislator who voted for it.”
The Illinois Freedom Caucus is comprised of State Representatives Adam Niemerg (R-Dieterich); Chris Miller (R-Oakland); Brad Halbrook (R-Shelbyville); Blaine Wilhour (R-Beecher City) and Dan Caulkins (R-Decatur). The members of the Illinois Freedom Caucus are members of the Illinois General Assembly who are advocating for limited government, lower taxes and accountability and integrity in government.
- Amalia - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:31 pm:
yep. friends down there tell me all the time how nuts the legal community is with certain judges, lawyers, prosecutors. it has been a circus since well before covid
- Norseman - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:34 pm:
Certainly looks like a conflict of interest to me. Of course, we can’t expect a responsible action from these folks.
- Osborne Smith III - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:36 pm:
It’s nice to see that judicial ethics don’t mean anything in that area.
- Fayette County - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:36 pm:
He didn’t demonstrate an understanding of the law as States Attorney so don’t expect anything different from him now that he’s a judge.
- Phil - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:36 pm:
Did the state move for the Judge’s recusal?
- Not required - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:37 pm:
OMG OMG! A conservative on both sides of the bench! This must be unethical!
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:38 pm:
The ethics here stink to high Heaven.
Calvin Ball kind of rules… until the rule changes again, which is Calvin Ball too.
“Ok, ethics can be ignored if the ruling we want can be”
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:39 pm:
===A conservative===
lol
If you can’t see a conflict of interest here, that says quite a lot about you.
- Mamacita - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:39 pm:
In Josh’s defense, he honestly isn’t smart enough to know this is a conflict
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:39 pm:
===conservative===
An unethical move by the conservatives?
- Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:42 pm:
Effing ridiculous.
- Glengarry - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:43 pm:
Southern Illinois politics has long given me a headache.
- Big Dipper - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:44 pm:
Besides the overlap of issues, unless he withdraws from the SAFE-T-Act suit (which he should have already as he is no longer a prosecutor), he shouldn’t be presiding over any action where the governor or AG are parties.
- Club J - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:48 pm:
DeVore know all about Judge shopping.
- Excitable Boy - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:49 pm:
If your letter contains “Amy Jacobson” in any capacity other than the punch line to a joke, you’re actually the punch line.
- jim - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:55 pm:
easy solution if you’re right - state can file a motion to substitute the judge for cause. no needed to get worked up.
- fs - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 2:56 pm:
He was a State’s Attorney, and is now a judge, and struggles to understand the lockstep doctrine? I know sometimes tone and sarcasm don’t show up in a transcript, so maybe he was just arguing to be confrontational and argumentative. For his sake, I hope so. If not, yikes.
- Cheswick - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:02 pm:
I believe even if the attorneys don’t bring it up, the judge has a duty to let everybody know any potential conflict of interest, past or present. Then they can all have a new judge assigned or waive the conflict, which I would be shocked if the state would waive. Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, just a courthouse enthusiast.
- Bruce( no not him) - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:03 pm:
Of course it’s a conflict of interest.
Welcome to small town politics and law.
They probably fish and hunt together too.
- TheInvisibleMan - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:03 pm:
THE COURT: How are they suppose to become familiar with it in two days?
MR. KINKEAD: They are all familiar with it. They
hired Mr. DeVore and filed a lawsuit within less than two weeks.
—
That was satisfying to read.
- Mason born - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:03 pm:
Ya that’s not a great look. Is he hearing just the TRO request or the whole case?
On a side note I think Devore messed up he might actually win. He could of asked for another $200 a piece to appeal a loss. /s ?
- Ron Burgundy - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:03 pm:
-OMG OMG A conservative on both sides of the bench This must be unethical-
It’s not his philosophy that matters. It’s prejudging the case and being biased that matters.
- Pundent - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:06 pm:
This is being teed up for another Devore “win” which, like most other Devore cases, won’t survive appeal. The cycle will continue, downstate voters will be angrier, and the ILGOP as a whole irrelevant. A person could get really tired from all that “winning.”
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:06 pm:
Restaurant quality conflict of interest.
If that somehow makes it out of that court it should be tossed right out of the next higher level court.
- Prospect - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:09 pm:
Rich, you of all people might not be the best to accuse someone of a conflict of interest. Glass houses and all.
- Mike Sorensen - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:10 pm:
By this logic, any state’s attorney that becomes a judge could be argued to have a conflict of interest in any criminal case, because as a state’s attorney, a county’s sheriff is, essentially, a “client,” and therefore the judge would have to be presumed to have a bias in their favor, no?
- fs - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:13 pm:
==If that somehow makes it out of that court it should be tossed right out of the next higher level court.==
To the point some others have raised: if the State fails to make suck a motion for a new judge based on this conflict, it could be tough to get it thrown out based on such conflict. As the parties in the other case, they would probably be presumed to be aware of the conflict going in. So if the have an issue with it, and don’t raise it, that could be a problem for them on that issue.
I don’t think it will matter. The “substantive” arguments being made by DeVore are pretty much trash and should be overturned at some point.
- Big Dipper - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:13 pm:
Mike, the judge is currently suing parties to the lawsuit. You think that it is ethical for him to decide a matter involving his own adversaries in another action?
- Mike Sorensen - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:22 pm:
If he was suing under the guise of his office of State’s Attorney, but he’s no longer a State’s Attorney (because he’s a judge), then he should no longer be a party in that suit, because he was acting in his capacity of the office. He wouldn’t still be prosecuting outstanding criminal cases he filed as SA, either, right?
If he’s suing as an individual, that’s a different situation. But that’s not my understanding of the case.
- Fed Up Taxpayer - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:30 pm:
Prospect at 3:09
Nailed it
- Big Dipper - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:42 pm:
You don’t automatically get removed from a suit when you change jobs. He needs to withdraw from it.
- Donnie Elgin - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:43 pm:
“How is this not a conflict of interest?”
Because no controlling legal authority has declared one.
- Big Dipper - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:43 pm:
In criminal cases the People is the party so you wouldn’t need to withdraw.
- Club J - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:49 pm:
**** Prospect at 3:09
Nailed it*****
Yeah nailed it as the most false post of the day. Then you jumped on the train. Judges and Attorneys are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard. Then think who we are talking about here. Tom DeVore has no standards.
- New Day - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:53 pm:
“Judges and Attorneys are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard.”
Forget a higher standard. Just a basic standard of ethics which this situation blatantly and explicitly violates.
- Big Dipper - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:53 pm:
==Because no controlling legal authority has declared one==
Are you an attorney? Because you are consistently ill-informed on legal issues.
- JoanP - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 3:59 pm:
= any state’s attorney that becomes a judge could be argued to have a conflict of interest in any criminal case =
In the counties where I practiced, prosecutors who became judges were generally not initially assigned to the criminal division to avoid conflicts. It’s a similar situation to a judge who had been in private practice being assigned a case represented by her former partners. She should recuse herself.
Conficts, of course, can be waived by the parties, but it’s better to avoid them in the first place.
- Facts Matter - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 4:21 pm:
So why didn’t the Attorney General file a motion for a change of judge? Did they not do their homework. In my days in private practice I had a client who was prosecuted by a judge when he was States Attorney. I filed a motion for a change of judge before anything happened in the case.
- Judicial Ethicist - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 4:26 pm:
https://jib.illinois.gov/code.html
RULE 2.11: DISQUALIFICATION
(A) A judge shall be disqualified in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including, but not limited to, the following circumstances:
(5) The judge:
(d) served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official concerning the matter or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits of the particular matter;
- transplant - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 4:28 pm:
The case file has disappeared from Judici in the last few minutes. Does anyone know what’s going on with the promised ruling?
- Facts Matter - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 4:35 pm:
According to the transcript, Mr. DeVore represents 866 plaintiffs. At $200 per plaintiff, that is $173,200 in fees.
- Anonymusings - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 4:57 pm:
Devore has a post on his FB page stating that the TRO was granted. Haven’t found anything in the news yet.
- Mamacita - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:00 pm:
Here’s the docket entry from judici: Payment of $310.00 applied on 01/17/2023.
THE COURT HAVING REVIEWED THE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR TRO/DECLARATORY RELIEF FINDS AS FOLLOWS: PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR TRO IS GRANTED AND
IS EFFECTIVE INSTANTER. DEFENDANT IS ENJOINED/PRECLUDED FROM ENFORCEMENT OF HB5471 (ALSO KNOWN AS PUBLIC ACT 102-1116), 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9 ET SEQ, AND 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10 ET SEQ AGAINST ANY OF THE NAMED PARTIES UNLESS AND UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. SEE
WRITTEN ORDER. CLERKS TO NOTIFY ATTORNEYS IMMEDIATELY OF RULING WITH REQUEST FOR THEIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER entered and filed. Copy emailed to Atty. Devore and Atty. Kinkead.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:00 pm:
And now the TRO…
The process… now we’ll see what’s next.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:04 pm:
With the updates…
The politics now become more into play.
GOP wins in court aren’t “all-winning”
- Norseman - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:15 pm:
State’s Attorney who doesn’t want to pay attention to the enrolled bill rule turns into a judge who thumbs his nose at the enrolled bill rule. STARE DECISIS is thrown out in favor of Meum Consilium Valet.
- Club J - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:17 pm:
This Judge should be removed from the bench. This is typical DeVore. He finally won something by cheating. Illinois dodged a bullet by him losing the election. He will do anything to get his name in the news. Like his previous lawsuits. He’s put children in danger.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:17 pm:
The first act of the circus show. As I stated a couple of days ago, and as Rich said (I think) yesterday, the Federal Court case is the one to watch. This is just a side-show to sell popcorn.
- TheInvisibleMan - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:21 pm:
The defense cited multiple state Supreme Court instructions this judge is bound by the court to follow.
I’d be interested on what ground the TRO was granted, as after reading the defense arguments there really isn’t a lot of wiggle room to grant one.
Specifically the claim of irreparable harm to sellers. While Devore argued this, he provided no actual data or evidence to support this - Just speculation. Additionally, harm that can be repaired through monetary payments is by definition not irreparable - and the court has already clearly stated this. Speculation is simply disallowed from being a valid reason to grant a TRO claiming irreparable harm.
There’s not much left for this TRO to be based on.
And since the appellate court for this district now has that other fun new judge - Michael McHaney, this is going to be clogging the courts and confusing the public for awhile.
- New Day - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:22 pm:
Wow, that opinion is really dumb. From blasting the shell bill as confusing in the intro to a complete misunderstanding of the constitutional process and single subject rule, it’s just bizarre. Sadly, I don’t think this law will ultimately survive but it sure as heck won’t be because of this idiocy. Oh, yea, and someone should file a complaint on Morrison for so blatantly disregarding legal and judicial ethics.
- Big Dipper - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:28 pm:
==nd since the appellate court for this district now has that other fun new judge - Michael McHaney, this is going to be clogging the courts and confusing the public for awhile.==
Well he might not be on the panel and even if he is he is just one vote out of three.
- Nagidam - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:28 pm:
===“While I’m disappointed in this decision by the plaintiff’s preferred court,…=== (Speaker Welch)
The irony of a pro-trial lawyer legislator complaining about venue shopping is awesome.
- ISPSGTRetired - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:29 pm:
I have a question for RNUG, or anyone who can do more than merely speculate.
My understanding is that none of the provisions of this new law apply to retired police officers. Although I could potentially benefit personally from this, I find it distasteful, and I am curious if this would likely fail if challenged under equal protection.
- Fivegreenleaves - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:38 pm:
I voted for Gov. Pritzker, and I couldn’t disagree with him more on this issue. He thinks taking firearms off the streets will stop gun crime. He’s wrong. This law will stop the sale of these firearms from dealers. Felons and those committing gun crimes first, are already banned from buying firearms, yet they still get them, illegally. Second, sure, you can ban the sale of these firearms in Illinois, but unless you stop and search every vehicle, you’re not going to stop these firearms coming into Illinois.
I own one of the firearms that have been banned, (it’s not a military-style firearm either), and since I bought my firearm almost 12 years ago, it has never been involved in a crime. Yet I’m told that even though I had to go through two background checks, complete a questionnaire under penalty of perjury, and obtain a FOID card, suddenly because someone else is irresponsible with a gun, I’m told the law I followed isn’t enough and now I have to comply with another law. Those who commit firearms crimes are not going to obey this law. One of them told me so. I hope this law is thrown out entirely because it’s intent will never be realized.
- TheInvisibleMan - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:50 pm:
I’ve seen some bad decisions before, but this is way up in the top 5.
This judge actually cited the Illinois Supreme Court ruling, and instructions he is bound by oath to follow as a member of the court that will eventually overturn this, to *support* his granting of the TRO.
Friends of Parks v. Chicago Park District
“Under this precedent, we will not invalidate legislation on the basis of the three-readings requirement if the legislation has been certified.”
- Mason born - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:50 pm:
This presents an issue. One of The Grifters clients is an FFL. The ban on sales no longer applies to them. So 2 things.
A. Are they only permitted to sell to the other plaintiffs?
B. Either way on A. those would be legally purchased firearms that were purchased after the effective date. Now if it survives the real challenge the State has to decide how to handle that. Are they grandfathered?
- very old soil - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 5:55 pm:
but the facts are
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441
- very old soil - Friday, Jan 20, 23 @ 6:05 pm:
About 80 percent of weapons used in mass shootings were purchased legally.