The ongoing legal debate concerning a new state law limiting lawsuits mounting constitutional challenges is layered and confusing – which might be the point.
Where to begin?
On Feb. 16, 2023, state Rep. Kevin Olickal, D-Skokie, filed House Bill 3062, an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act allowing (but not requiring) landlords to accept reusable tenant screening reports. The bill passed the House 113-0 on March 22 and had its second Senate reading on April 20.
On May 18, Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, filed Senate Floor Amendment 2, replacing everything with new language amending the civil procedure code by limiting constitutional challenges to state laws and actions to courts in Cook or Sangamon counties. A third amendment clarified those provisions don’t apply to collective bargaining dispute claims.
On May 19, the “third reading,” the Senate passed the overhauled bill 37-16. On May 25, the House voted 69-35 to approve both amendments. Gov. JB Pritzker signed it into law June 6. No Republicans supported the change.
The constitutionality of HB 3062 arose during a lawsuit challenging a different 2023 law: House Bill 218, the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act. That law clarifies gun makers and dealers are subject to state consumer fraud laws.
A gun store in Alton challenged HB 218 in Madison County. The state tried to move that lawsuit to Springfield, per HB 3062, but on March 4, Madison County Judge Ronald Foster agreed with the gun store’s objections. On March 13, Attorney General Kwame Raoul asked the Illinois Supreme Court to reverse Foster’s ruling.
On March 14, the gun shop’s lawyer, Thomas Maag, also appealed. While he wants Foster’s ruling preserved with respect to transferring his client’s claims to Sangamon County, Maag asked the top court to reverse Foster and agree the General Assembly violated the Illinois Constitution’s three readings rule.
If that rule sounds familiar, it’s because two Republican justices, Lisa Holder White and David Overstreet, cited it in their August 2023 dissent to the opinion upholding House Bill 5471, Democrats’ assault weapon ban. That precedent led Foster – despite agreeing with the gun shop – to punt on that particular question.
Thus far, the Supreme Court has allowed the signatures of the Senate president and House speaker on any bill to stand as proof lawmakers followed their own rules. It’s called the “enrolled bill doctrine,” essentially forcing judges to defer to the leaders’ attestation.
Multiple appellate courts have blasted the doctrine and the Supreme Court’s refusal to address flagrant abuse of constitutional requirements, but so far to no effect. The end result is average folks losing the thread on whether to question laws themselves or how they came to be – or both – which seemingly suits the lawmakers.
• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media. Follow him on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.
:quality(70)/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/shawmedia/55aeee77-0609-4323-931a-c6686fff01e6.png)