* Background is here if you need it. From a press release..
Today, members of the Illinois House and Senate Republican caucuses joined together to call on Gov. Pritzker to veto Senate Bill 328, legislation that would serve only to enrich trial lawyers at the expense of jobs and economic growth. They also filed a lawsuit in Sangamon County court to enforce the Illinois Constitution’s Three Readings Rule, due to the blatant unconstitutional manner the Democratic Majority rammed the special interest proposal through the General Assembly after midnight on the last day of session.
The legislation would overhaul Illinois’ judicial system and allow out-of-state businesses to be sued by out-of-state plaintiffs in Illinois courts for incidents with no connection to the state. A lesser-known provision in the law, also allows foreign businesses registered in the state as well. It was passed using a variety of procedural gimmicks to avoid constitutional requirements and public scrutiny.
“We are answering the call of job creators, good government watchdog groups, and most importantly, our constituents, to stand up for transparency and against this job-killing legislation,” House Minority Leader Tony McCombie (R-Savanna) said. “Governor Pritzker must veto SB328 and show not only the people of Illinois, but also businesses around the world, we want to put all of our people to work, not just trial lawyers.”
Despite Democrats’ super majorities in both the House and Senate Chambers, major pieces of legislation continue to bypass the constitutionally required Three Readings Rule to avoid due process, transparency, and public engagement. Senate Bill 328 was passed after midnight with a gut-and-replace maneuver that allowed the majority party to avoid proper due process such as committee hearings and public input, violating the Three Readings Rule required in the Illinois State Constitution.
“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 (R-Downers Grove). “I am calling on Gov. Pritzker to join us in standing up for Illinois taxpayers and promote economic investment in our state by vetoing this anti-business legislation.”
* Their problem is their lawsuit and their public remarks today cite dissenting opinions. For example, this is some of what Senate Republican Leader John Curran said today…
This process used was a complete gut and replace on the last day in the second chamber, completely new language, completely changing the bill and then passing it through that second chamber. In this instance, the Senate and back to the House for concurrence in the same day. That is a clear violation of what the Constitution calls for. And we are seizing upon that the courts have been more acutely aware recently of the abuse of this process, which is rampant in the Illinois General Assembly. Leaning into Justice Holder White’s recent dissent, calling out and highlighting this abuse of the legislative process in the Caulkins case.
* From the lawsuit…
Former challenges to legislation as having not met the Three Readings Rule have been countered by the Enrolled Bill Doctrine. See, e.g., Geja’s Café v. Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, 606 N.E.2d 1212 (Ill. 1992); Fuehrmeyer v. City of Chicago, 311 N.E.2d 116 (Ill. 1974). Illinois Courts have held that the legislative leaders’ sign-off creates the presumption that all procedural requirements — including the Three Readings Rule — have been met. Fuehrmeyer at 119; Cutinello v. Whitley, 641 N.E.2d 360 (Ill. 1994); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 691 N.E.2d 374 (Ill. 1998); Friends of the Parks v. Chicago Park District, 786 N.E.2d 161 (Ill. 2003).
Judicial adherence to the Enrolled Bill Doctrine is far from unanimous, however. In People v. Dunigan, Justice Heiple drafted a pointed dissent questioning the logical underpinnings of the Enrolled Bill Doctrine as well as the majority’s problematic reliance on the testimony of delegates to the 1970 Constitutional Convention to support it.
* We have seen this citation from the new lawsuit quite a bit over the years…
While not invalidating the Enrolled Bill Doctrine, the Illinois Supreme Court reiterated in Friends of the Parks that the legislature has “shown remarkably poor self-discipline in policing itself in regard to the three-readings requirement.”
But here is the full quote…
We noted in Geja’s Cafe and again in Cutinello that the legislature had shown remarkably poor self-discipline in policing itself in regard to the three-readings requirement. The same poor self-discipline is alleged to have occurred in this case. The record below has not, however, been sufficiently developed to support or contradict this claim. Nevertheless, 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 (see Cutinello, 161 Ill.2d at 425, 204 Ill.Dec. 136, 641 N.E.2d 360), our responsibility to ensure obedience to the constitution remains an equally important concern.
In sum, we hold that section 3 of the Illinois Sport Facility Act violates neither the public purpose doctrine nor the public trust doctrine and that Public Act 91-0935 is not subject to procedural challenge in light of the enrolled-bill doctrine. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.
So, 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.
Also, they’ll get a decent press pop about a bill their business allies strongly oppose.
…Adding… ITLA…
ITLA Statement on Senate Bill 328: Protecting Illinoisans from Dangerous Toxins
Lawmakers took a significant step to protect workers and consumers from exposure to toxic substances by passing Senate Bill 328, which will improve the likelihood that all corporate actors that contributed to poisoning a person will be held responsible in our state’s court system — regardless of where those business are physically or legally headquartered.
Toxic tort cases occur when individuals are injured, made ill or die if they ingest, inhale or absorb hazardous substances. Businesses can be held responsible for the harms they cause if they didn’t properly warn about the risks of their product, gave false or misleading information about the possible dangers, or engaged in negligent manufacturing practices.
This proposed change in law applies only in cases alleging injury or illness resulting from exposure to a substance that is defined as toxic based on the state’s Uniform Hazardous Substances Act and that also involves multiple defendants where at least one defendant is already subject to specific jurisdiction in Illinois for that case. Once the connection to a company operating in Illinois is established, other entities registered to do business in Illinois (no matter where they are based) may be brought into the case as co-defendants if their use of toxic substances in their products contributed to causing harm to that person, whether that occurred in Illinois or in another state.
One example of who would benefit is a person who was employed by a contractor and sent over the course of their career to do repair work at power plants located in Illinois and multiple other states. At those job sites for extended periods of time they were unknowingly exposed to asbestos, an extremely hazardous substance that causes irreparable lung damage leading to terrible suffering and an agonizing death. That cumulative exposure across years caused their illness. Under current law, companies based in other states could move to dismiss a case against them filed in Illinois, even though they had chosen to do business here by hiring a contractor based in our state. This helps people who may be gravely ill by keeping the case in Illinois, rather than requiring them to file separate cases and travel for court hearings in multiple states where other defendants are located.
No company should be permitted to escape accountability for the misuse of dangerous toxins simply by being headquartered in a different state. Illinois has long opposed predatory profiteering by providing a civil justice system in which everyone, regardless of their means, gets a fair shake. Senate Bill 328 upholds that tradition by recognizing that the privilege of doing business here comes with the responsibility of not hurting Illinoisans.
At a time when the Trump Administration and Republican-controlled Congress are gutting environmental, patient, worker and consumer protections, it is vital that states step up to fill the federal government’s vacuum.
Contrary to the fear-mongering and misinformation propagated by opponents, Senate Bill 328 does not apply to cases involving food or prescription drugs. This measure does not add to the volume or types of cases that can already be brought in Illinois. It is relevant in a more limited set of circumstances and merely ensures that parties that should rightfully be included as defendants are included, so plaintiffs have the prospect of obtaining more complete justice. It is also a response to the realities of the modern American economy in which people are employed by Illinois businesses, but work in other states on projects that expose them to hazardous substances, or live in Illinois and unknowingly purchase from an Illinois retailer goods made with cancer-causing toxins by an out-of-state manufacturer.
This legislation follows a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning the liability of out-of-state companies. The court ruled in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. that a Pennsylvania law requiring out-of-state companies to consent to the jurisdiction of its court system, as a condition of registering to do business in that state, did not violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The nation’s high court rejected an argument from Norfolk Southern, a company incorporated and headquartered in Virginia, that it did not consent to the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania state court system.
