Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Pritzker says state has no laws on the books now to regulate ‘rogue’ migrant buses, but says GA will consider options

Posted in:

Illinois

* Gov. Pritzker was asked today if the state had any plans to try to regulate or stop the “rogue buses” that are dumping asylum-seekers in various suburbs…

So as you know, the laws don’t exist in the state of Illinois for us to do that today. We can’t just impose some rules from the state level on every city, every county, every township.

There are certain towns and cities that have the ability to do that and certain that don’t. And so, we’ve been listening to the various mayors and other leaders of those local governments to find out what it is they’d like the state to do.

And certainly as the legislature comes back into session over the next week, they’re going to be considering whatever the options are.

I do wonder, however, how any of these new local ordinances or possible future state laws would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause. But, hey, they’re legal until somebody successfully sues, and the bus companies haven’t yet sued.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 12:44 pm

Comments

Don’t states have laws regulating truck drivers (i.e., in addition to federal regulations) - like weigh stations and the like? I could easily be wrong about this, but I don’t think some very modest regulations like phoning in a drop-off location 24 hours in advance, requiring passengers give knowing consent for a number of things, such as if they are to be dropped off in inclement weather unless at a police/fire station or train station open during business hours, etc. would be an unreasonable burden such that it would invoke the commerce clause. And an anti-consumer fraud law requiring to prevent misleading claims about coming to Illinois shouldn’t violate the Constitution either. The key would be the criminal and civil penalties - once bus companies started violating, the state would sue them as “John/Jane Doe” companies and individuals, then take discovery of the State of Texas to uncover them. That, or when Illinois tried to extradite people (e.g., for buses caught on camera violating the statute), is when the legal fireworks would begin, but it would at least put Texas and the companies on the defensive.

Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 1:05 pm
I wonder if Bad Samaritan laws would apply when the temperature drops below zero and drop offs get frostbite.

Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 1:12 pm
What about rogue casino buses?

Comment by Funnies Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 1:17 pm
The ordinances might not be legal under the 14th Amendment. The right to travel.

rb.gy/9viokv

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 1:17 pm
Determining safe drop of sites and legal procedures for disembarking passengers has no more impact on “commerce” than traffic laws.

The state should establish welcome centers at Texas/Mexico Border and tell gov. abbott to have a seat on the bench. We will take anyone who wants to come here, and then we can bus them to Illinois ourselves. Man would that be humiliating for abbott.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 1:40 pm
Last I saw, LaSalle County was thinking about an disaster declaration to prevent the Texas busses from unloading in the County. Not sure how it would be enforced. Think it is silly.

https://www.shawlocal.com/illinois-valley/2024/01/03/la-salle-county-to-be-no-sanctuary-chairman-confirms-emergency-declaration-was-discussed/

Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 2:41 pm
The commerce clause requires no interference with the ability to do business across state lines. However, states are allowed to regulate the time, place, and manner in which the buses operate within state lines, as long as it’s not overly burdensome. Requiring that buses provide notice and regulate when/where passengers may be dropped off, is not an interference of business but rather, a condition to operate within the State of Illinois.

Think of how Illinois vehicles must have front and back license plates whereas other states do not. We can’t stop Florida vehicles from entering the state because they only have license plates in the back, but we can require them to pay a highway toll, abide by IL speed limits, etc.

Comment by ConLaw Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 3:25 pm
I’m just going to repeat my comment earlier today under Isabel’s Morning Briefing …

Been thinking about this for a while.
While I see where coordination would be to everyone’s advantage, I don’t think these towns and cities are thinking this through. SCOTUS has said, within the Constitutional guarantee of Liberty, there is an unenumerated right to travel without government restrictions. Plus it smacks of the various discriminatory sundown laws that were once common. Kind of surprised some enterprising lawyer hasn’t brought suit on behalf of the bus companies or the immigrants.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 4:19 pm
49 USC 41713 preempts states from regulating rates, routes, and services of motor carriers, with exemptions that would not apply in this case. Any law passed would most likely be struck down in federal courts, lots of case law exists on this.

Comment by Commish Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 4:24 pm
I googled 49 USC 41713 and it seems to be specific to air travel. Per the Cornell Law library, “(a) Definition.—
In this section, “State” means a State, the District of Columbia, and a territory or possession of the United States.
(b) Preemption.—
(1) Except as provided in this subsection, a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart.
(2) Paragraphs (1) and (4) of this subsection do not apply to air transportation provided entirely in Alaska unless the transportation is air transportation (except charter air transportation) provided under a certificate issued under section 41102 of this title.
(3) This subsection does not limit a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States that owns or operates an airport served by an air carrier holding a certificate issued by the Secretary of Transportation from carrying out its proprietary powers and rights.”

Comment by Blitz Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 5:07 pm
@blitz read the entire law, section b covers motor carriers

Comment by Commish Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 5:14 pm
===like weigh stations and the like? ===

Yeah, because federal law specifically allows that

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 10, 24 @ 5:25 pm