Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Two more Republican-filed Enrolled Bill Doctrine lawsuits fail
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Two more Republican-filed Enrolled Bill Doctrine lawsuits fail

Monday, Sep 8, 2025 - Posted by Rich Miller

* My weekly syndicated newspaper column

I’m coming a bit late to this (national current events having overtaken everything), but a lawsuit filed by House and Senate Republicans was recently tossed out by Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Jack Davis, II. The suit sought to strike down a new law — Senate Bill 328 — backed by trial lawyers. The Republicans say they will appeal.

The Republican lawsuit claimed that the majority Democrats had violated the Illinois Constitution’s “three readings rule.”

The titles of bills are required to be read aloud on three separate session days in each chamber. In the state’s early days, the entire bills had to be read aloud apparently because so many legislators were illiterate.

Often, though, bills that have already passed one chamber are gutted and replaced with amendments by different legislation, usually after the bills have been moved in the second chamber to third reading. The final bills can then be passed by both chambers in a single day without committee hearings because their titles had already been read three times in each body. And as long as both legislative leaders certify that the bills complied with procedural requirements, known as the “Enrolled Bill Doctrine,” the legislation is considered constitutionally passed.

“This special interest proposal was passed by the Democratic majority using a shady process that clearly violates the substance and spirit of the Illinois Constitution,” said Illinois Senate Republican Leader John Curran when he and others filed the suit in June.

The Republicans noted in their lawsuit that even though the Illinois Supreme Court had shot down other lawsuits attempting to kill legislation based on alleged violations of the Enrolled Bill Doctrine, justices on the state’s top court had sternly warned the legislature in 1992 that their judicial patience was wearing thin: “(T)he General Assembly has shown remarkably poor self-discipline in policing itself,” the court said at the time. “Indeed, both parties agree that ignoring the three-readings requirement has become a procedural regularity.”

But Davis countered that the Supreme Court has since addressed three readings challenges “on several occasions and has, without exception, followed the enrolled bill rule.” All appellate courts have also done the same, he wrote. Davis said he was therefore bound by precedent.

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because the legislation, allowing out of state businesses to now be sued for “exposure to a substance defined as toxic,” can “never affect plaintiffs.”

Earlier last month, Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Adam Giganti used the exact same enrolled bill doctrine history cited by Davis to throw out a lawsuit filed by several members of the Illinois Freedom Caucus against the new state budget.

Giganti also ruled that because people involved in actually implementing the budget were not included as defendants in the lawsuit — including the governor, the comptroller, the treasurer and the Illinois Department of Revenue director — then that required dismissal as well under Section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Aside from the obvious press pops that the lawsuits have already attracted and will continue to receive, the object here is to eventually get these lawsuits in front of the Illinois Supreme Court to see if they can convince the justices to finally follow through on their 33-year-old warning.

A 2003 Supreme Court ruling referenced its own 1992 “remarkably poor self-discipline in policing itself” comment in a new case involving a similar constitutional challenge. However, the top court noted that the record of alleged violations had not been “sufficiently developed to support or contradict this claim” of a violation.

“Nevertheless,” the opinion continued, “because this court is ever mindful of its duty to enforce the constitution of this state, we take the opportunity to urge the legislature to follow the three-readings rule. While separation of powers concerns militate in favor of the enrolled-bill doctrine, our responsibility to ensure obedience to the constitution remains an equally important concern.”

So, as I told my blog readers when the Republican lawsuit was filed, “the Republicans are likely hoping that if they keep bringing these cases to the court’s attention, the Supremes will eventually decide that the record has been ‘sufficiently developed’ to support their claim.”

But it’s highly doubtful, to say the least, that the 5-2 Democratic majority will accede to the Republicans’ wishes even then.

       

3 Comments »
  1. - Chambanalyst - Monday, Sep 8, 25 @ 8:56 am:

    Legislatively, the intention of the suit seems benevolent - material changes to meaningful legislation deserve time in committee rather than these mega rush jobs to get to the floor vote we’ve seen in the past. But as usual, extreme partisanship clouds what could be a civic benefit, so this instead just seems like a retaliatory hail mary to jam things up.


  2. - JB13 - Monday, Sep 8, 25 @ 10:29 am:

    Those decisions were predetermined.

    Unlike a slew of federal judges, these judges understand that if the Supreme Court rules on an issue, they can’t just pretend it didn’t happen.

    Speaking of pretending, though, the enrolled bill doctrine must be reined in. Legislators cannot be allowed to just make believe that they followed the law and expect everyone else to go along with their gaslighting.


  3. - H-W - Monday, Sep 8, 25 @ 10:52 am:

    I would think an important data point would be to demonstrate how often does the Legislature formally violate the three readings rule, relative to the amount of legislation it hears. If this is a rare occurrence then it would only affect specific bills. It it were to be shown a common occurrence, then that might be relevant to the IL Supreme Court. But in the absence of such data, simply saying it happens does not demand action.


TrackBack URI

Anonymous commenters, uncivil comments, rumor-mongering, disinformation and profanity of any kind will be deleted.

(required)

(not required)



* Tribune editorial board uses memory of crime victim to make a faulty both-sides argument
* Today's quotable
* Two takes on Wheaton
* Two more Republican-filed Enrolled Bill Doctrine lawsuits fail
* When RETAIL Succeeds, Illinois Succeeds
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* Good morning!
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Selected press releases (Live updates)
* Live coverage
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
September 2025
August 2025
July 2025
June 2025
May 2025
April 2025
March 2025
February 2025
January 2025
December 2024
November 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller