* Illinois Supreme Court opinion in Malik Cedrick Bright v. Jeffrey Yenchko in his official
capacity as chief of the Firearms Services Bureau of the Illinois State Police…

At issue in this appeal is section 8(n) of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Card Act) (430 ILCS 65/8(n) (West 2022)), which is part of a statutory scheme authorizing the Illinois State Police to suspend the FOID card of an individual who is charged with a felony offense. The plaintiff in this case was charged with a felony offense, and as a result, his FOID card was suspended.

After the felony charge was dismissed, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the circuit court of Randolph County seeking the reinstatement of his FOID card.

In ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court declared that section 8(n) of the FOID Card Act was facially unconstitutional “to the extent it allows [the Illinois State Police] to revoke, suspend or otherwise impair the ability of an Illinois citizen to possess firearms while under indictment (or information) for a felony offense.”

Because the trial court’s judgment invalidated a state statute, an appeal was taken directly to this court. For the following reasons, we find that this case is moot and no mootness exception allows us to consider the appeal. We therefore vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court with directions to dismiss the action.

* The trial judge overreached and the Supremes made that clear…

Furthermore, it was improper for the trial court to consider a claim that was not pled in the complaint and to grant relief that was not requested in the complaint. […]

In this case, the trial court not only went beyond the bounds of the complaint to grant relief to nonparties, but it did so for the purpose of invalidating the entire statute for all Illinois citizens charged with felonies. In doing so, the court ignored its obligation to avoid reaching constitutional issues unless necessary to decide a case. […]

Viewing the complaint as it was framed, raising only an as-applied challenge as related to Bright, the trial court should have dismissed the complaint as moot because this case does not fall within an established mootness exception. “An appeal is moot if no controversy exists or if events have occurred which foreclose the reviewing court from granting effectual relief to the complaining party.” […]

On May 31, 2023, approximately two weeks after filing his complaint, Bright’s FOID card was reinstated by the Illinois State Police pursuant to his administrative appeal. As a result, the trial court was unable to grant Bright effective relief, and the case became moot. Although Bright’s complaint requested additional relief in the form of enjoining Yenchko from suspending his FOID card in the future, that relief is too speculative to save the cause of action from being dismissed as moot.

Nevertheless, the trial court found that the issue presented by Bright’s claim fell within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. We disagree. “[W]hether a case falls within an established exception to the mootness doctrine is a case-by-case determination.” Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 355. “These exceptions are to be construed narrowly and require a clear showing of each criterion to bring the case within the terms” of the exception. In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d 338, 350 (2006). The party challenging a finding of mootness bears the burden of proving that an exception applies.[…]

In entering this disposition, we express no opinion on the merits of the parties’ other arguments. The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the complaint. See In re Marriage of Donald B., 2014 IL 115463, ¶¶ 35, 38 (where an appeal is moot and no mootness exception applies, we vacate the lower court’s judgment and dismiss the action).

The “no opinion on the merits” and mootness issue should prevent this from being overturned by the US Supreme Court.