* Background from January…

The Illinois Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case centered on whether a state law passed in 2023 violates the due process rights of Illinoisans outside Sangamon and Cook counties.

A 2023 law restricts certain types of lawsuits – namely challenges to a law’s constitutionality – to courts in those two counties. The law came in response to challenges to the state’s COVID-19 response, a state law ending cash bail and the state’s ban on assault weapons, among others.

These lawsuits – often filed in jurisdictions with sympathetic judges – became a way for some conservatives to make a name for themselves at the state level. Former governor candidate and state Sen. Darren Bailey, R-Xenia, and former attorney general candidate Thomas DeVore both backed high-profile lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state laws. […]

The case before the Illinois Supreme Court was brought by Piasa Armory, an East Alton gun store. It challenged the constitutionality of an unrelated firearms regulation, the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, which was also signed into law in 2023. That law subjects firearms groups to civil penalties for violating consumer protection laws.

Piasa Armory almost immediately filed a lawsuit challenging that law in Madison County, about a 30-minute drive from the gun store. The state then tried to move the case to Sangamon County – about 90 minutes from East Alton – citing the then-new law.

But a Madison County judge rejected the state’s attempt to move the case, saying that the law violated the due process rights of residents of other counties by “depriving” them of their ability to mount their best possible case.

The judge had applied his decision to the entire state, but the government argued that the Supreme Court should “rule narrowly” and apply it only to the plaintiff.

* The top court did just that today, and, for good measure, also ruled against the plaintiff…

The question before us is the constitutionality of section 2-101.5 as it applies to plaintiff. […]

We initially examine the State’s contention that the circuit court effectively found section 2-101.5 facially unconstitutional by ruling that the statute violated the due process rights of all individuals who reside or were injured outside of Cook and Sangamon County. The State contends that the ruling invalidates the statute in every case where it would otherwise be enforced. We note that a party raising a facial challenge must show that the statute is unconstitutional under any possible set of facts, whereas a party raising an as-applied challenge must establish that the statute is unconstitutional as it applies to the party’s particular facts and circumstances. A successful facial challenge voids the statute, but in a successful as-applied claim, the party may enjoin the statute’s enforcement against only himself.

Here, plaintiff framed its claim in terms of its individual circumstances, but the circuit court broadened its ruling to encompass everyone residing or injured outside of the two named counties. The fact that the circuit court’s ruling encompassed more than just plaintiff was not a de facto declaration that the statute was facially unconstitutional. In fact, plaintiff and the circuit court expressly acknowledged that the statute would be constitutional in certain applications, which would defeat a facial challenge. By definition, an as-applied constitutional claim depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the party asserting the claim, so an examination of plaintiff’s particular situation remains paramount. […]

In the instant case, the circuit court largely considered the “convenience” of Madison County and the “inconvenience” of Sangamon County as a forum for plaintiff in determining that the first two Mathews factors weighed heavily in plaintiff’s favor. The relative convenience of each forum is central in considering a motion filed pursuant to the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens. However, a forum non conveniens motion “seeks to move the action from one forum with proper venue to another, more convenient forum with proper venue.” The doctrine of forum non conveniens may therefore be applied only when there is more than one proper venue. It is not the correct test here, where the question is whether a statute limiting venue for certain types of constitutional actions against the State violates a plaintiff’s due process rights. We further note that section 2-101.5(b) explicitly states that “[t]he doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply to actions subject to this Section.” […]

Plaintiff’s underlying case is a facial constitutional challenge of section 2BBBB of the Act. It will therefore most likely be resolved without a trial and thus without the need for witnesses to travel to any courthouse, as well as without much, if any, documentary evidence. As for the additional driving time for counsel, even in a forum non conveniens analysis, counsel’s location is given little weight. Moreover, counsel has the option to appear remotely for hearings, and witnesses may appear remotely under certain circumstances as well. […]

We conclude that the State has some interest in consolidating actions in certain counties, especially in light of recent statewide litigation asserting duplicative constitutional claims. … Still, the State’s interest is not extremely strong given that the Attorney General’s office was previously able to manage the litigation under general venue principles. As we observed in Williams, the Attorney General has satellite offices throughout Illinois and routinely litigates in every county in the state.

Balancing all of the Mathews factors ultimately yields the conclusion that section 2-101.5 is not unconstitutional as applied specifically to plaintiff because requiring plaintiff to litigate in Sangamon County does not deprive it of the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. The inconvenience asserted by plaintiff is insufficient for a due process claim, especially considering that Sangamon County is only one hour further, that this case will almost certainly be resolved without trial, and that remote appearances are possible. We recognize that the Attorney General could also appear remotely, but the government’s interest extends beyond the convenience of appearing in - 12 - particular courtrooms, as it seeks to more efficiently handle the type of constitutional case that plaintiff has filed here. Further, the parties are not starting off on an equal footing in the balancing test because the legislature has the power to determine venue (Mapes, 363 Ill. at 230) and we generally do not “interfere with the legislature’s province in determining where venue is proper” […]

(T)hough litigating in Sangamon County may be less convenient for plaintiff than litigating in Madison County, it clearly does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional deprivation of due process.

This was a 6-1 decision, with Justice Overstreet dissenting. Overstreet essentially argued for a much more broad decision, instead of this narrow path.