Rowe v. Raoul

• Docket Number: Docket No. 129248
• Decision Date: 18 July 2023
• Citation: Rowe v. Raoul, 223 N.E.3d 1010 (Ill. 2023)
• Parties: James R. ROWE, Kankakee County State’s Attorney, et al., Appellees, v. Kwame RAOUL, Attorney General of Illinois, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

223 N.E.3d 1010

2023 IL 129248

James R. ROWE, Kankakee County

State’s Attorney, et al.,

Appellees,

v.Kwame RAOUL, Attorney General of Illinois, et al., Appellants.

(Docket No. 129248)

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed July 18, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kankakee County, the Hon. Thomas W. Cunnington, Judge, presiding.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Alex Hemmer and Sarah A. Hunger, Deputy Solicitors General, of Chicago, of counsel), Adam R. Vaught, Special Assistant Attorney General, of Kilbride & Vaught, LLC, of LaGrange, and Luke A. Casson, Special Assistant Attorney General, of Andreou & Casson, Ltd., and Devon C. Bruce, Special Assistant Attorney General, of Power Rogers, LLP, both of Chicago, for appellants.

James R. Rowe, State’s Attorney, of Kankakee, James W. Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet, Patrick D. Kenneally, State’s Attorney, of Woodstock, Jacqueline Lacy, State’s Attorney, of Danville, Eric Weis, State’s Attorney, of Yorkville, and Dan Wright, State’s Attorney, of Springfield, for appellees.

Alexandra K. Block, of Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., and Matthew J. Piers, Kate Schwartz, and Margaret E. Truesdale, of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd., both of Chicago, for amici curiae Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice et al.

David W. McArdle, of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle, of Crystal Lake, for amicus curiaeSean Kennedy.

Timothy M. Grace, of Grace & Thompson, of Chicago, for amicus curiaeChicago Fraternal Order of Police LodgeNo. 7.

OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE THEISdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 This appeal concerns the constitutionality of Public Acts 101-652 and 102-1104 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), which dramatically changed the statutory framework for pretrial release of criminal defendants in Illinois.The circuit court of Kankakee County held that certain provisions of those acts violated the bail clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 9), the crime victims’ rights clause (id.§ 8.1(a)(9)), and the separation of powers clause (id.art. II, § 1) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.For the reasons that follow, we reverse that decision.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 In 2017, this court established the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices(Commission) and charged it with "conducting a comprehensive review of the State’s pretrial detention system" and with making recommendations on potential reforms to that system.Ill. S. Ct. Comm’n on Pretrial Practices, Preliminary Report 4 (2018), https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/3c2435c7-c00a-4a7e-bebb-141afa154102/12-18.pdf [https://perma.cc/S8VA-83S9].In 2020, the Commission issued its final report, listing more than 50 recommendations to reform pretrial practices to "ensure defendants are not denied liberty solely due to their inability to financially secure their release from custody."Ill. S. Ct. Comm’n on Pretrial Practices, Final Report 22 (2020), https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/227a0374- 1909-4a7b-83e3-c63cdf61476e/Illinois% 20Supreme% 20Court% 20Commission% 20on% 20Pretrial% 20Practices% 20Final% 20Report% 20-% 20April% 202020.pdf [https://perma.cc/Y4FU-GJKL].The Commission observed that the General Assembly bore responsibility to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963(Code)(725 ILCS 5/100-1 et seq.(West 2020)) in that regard, and it urged the legislature to ensure that "conditions of release will be non-monetary, least restrictive, and considerate of the financial ability of the accused."Ill. S. Ct. Comm’n on Pretrial Practices, Final Report 69 (2020).

¶ 4 The following year, such reform occurred.In 2021, the General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, Public Act 101-652 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), commonly known as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act (Act).¹The Act comprehensively overhauled many aspects of the state’s criminal justice system.The Act revised the standards for police officers’ use of force in making arrests (id.§ 10-216), conferred new authority on the Attorney General to investigate and combat alleged civil rights violations by law enforcement agencies (id.§ 10-116.7), and imposed new requirements for correctional facilities, including the requirement that those institutions report all deaths in custody (Pub. Act 101-652, § 3-1(eff. July 1, 2021)).Most importantly and relevant to this appeal, the Act, along with Public Act 102-1104 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023)(Follow-Up Act), dismantled and rebuilt Illinois’s statutory framework for the pretrial release of criminal defendants.SeePub. Act 101-652, § 10-255, 102-1104, § 70(eff. Jan. 1, 2023)(amending725 ILCS 5/art. 110).

¶ 5The Act’s pretrial release provisions center on the abolition of monetary bail.SeePub. Act 101-652, § 10-255(eff. Jan. 1, 2023)(adding 725 ILCS 5/110-1.5)("the requirement of posting monetary bail is abolished").Instead of monetary bail, the Act’s pretrial release provisions, as amended by the Follow-Up Act, establish a default rule that all persons charged with an offense shall be eligible for pretrial release on personal recognizance (Pub. Act 102- 1104, § 70(eff. Jan. 1, 2023)(amending725 ILCS 5/110-2(a))), subject to conditions of release that the trial court deems appropriate, such as electronic monitoring or home supervision (id.(adding 725 ILCS 5/110-5(c), 110-10)).Although the Act eliminates monetary bail and provides that "[a]ll persons charged with an offense shall be eligible for pretrial release before conviction"(id.(amending725 § 110-2(a))), the pretrial release provisions allow the State to seek, and the trial court to order, pretrial detention of criminal defendants in certain specified cases.Seeid.(amending725 ILCS 5/110-2, 110-6.1).The court may order a defendant detained pending trial if the defendant is charged with any of an array of enumerated felony offenses and "poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community."Id.(amending725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1)-(7)).The court may also order a defendant detained pending trial, if the defendant has been charged with an enumerated offense or any felony "other than a Class 4 offense" and if the court concludes there is "a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution."Id.(adding 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(8)).Under this new statutory scheme, "[a]ll defendants shall be presumed eligible for pre- trial release," and the State bears the burden of establishing a defendant’s eligibility for pretrial detention.Id.(amending725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)).

¶ 6The Act also revised section 110-5 of the Code by removing all references to the term "bail" and all references to the trial court’s discretion in the determination of "the amount of monetary bail."SeePub. Act 101-652, § 10-255(eff. Jan. 1, 2023)(amending725 ILCS 5/110-5).The Act replaced the provisions addressing the determination of "the amount of monetary bail" with provisions that set out factors the court must consider in determining the conditions of pretrial release.Id.The Act also repealed section 110-7 of the Code, which provided for the deposit of 10% of any required monetary bail.Id.§ 10-260(repealing 725 ILCS 5/110-7).The Act’s pretrial release provisions were scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2023.

¶ 7 On September 16, 2022, plaintiffsJames Rowe, the State’s Attorney of Kankakee County, and Michael Downey, the Sheriff of Kankakee County, filed a lawsuit in the Kankakee County circuit court against Illinois Attorney GeneralKwame Raoul, Illinois Governor Jay Robert Pritzker, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel Christopher Welch, and Illinois Senate President Donald Harmon.The plaintiffs raised claims that challenged the constitutionality of the Act as a whole and, alternatively, claims that challenged only the constitutionality of the pretrial release provisions.

¶ 8The plaintiffs’ first amended complaint contained eight counts.Count I alleged that the Act’s pretrial release provisions are, in effect, an invalid attempt by the legislature to amend the Illinois Constitution.SeeIll. Const. 1970, art. XIV.Count II alleged that the Act is unconstitutional in its entirety due to the legislature’s alleged failure to comply with the Illinois Constitution’s single-subject rule.Seeid.art. IV, § 8(d).Count III alleged that the pretrial release provisions violate the bail clause of the Illinois Constitution.Id.art. I, § 9.Count IV alleged that the pretrial release provisions violate the crime victims’ rights clause.Id.§ 8.1(a)(9).Count V alleged that the pretrial release provisions violate the separation of powers clause.Id.art. II, § 1.Count VI alleged that the Act in its entirety violates the three-readings requirement.Seeid.art. IV, § 8(d).Count VII alleged that the various provisions of the Act violate due process due to vagueness.And, finally, Count VIII requested injunctive relief.

¶ 9 Subsequently, additional state’s attorneys and sheriffs filed lawsuits in other counties throughout the state, all of which raised essentially the same constitutional challenges.On October 31, 2022, this court transferred and consolidated those lawsuits with the initial lawsuit in Kankakee County.SeeIll.S. Ct. R. 384(eff. July 1, 2017).Several other similar lawsuits were later consolidated with the Kankakee County lawsuit by agreement of the parties.

¶ 10 In November 2022, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.After the motions were filed, the General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, Public Act 102-1104 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023), which amended various provisions of the Act.The trial court ordered supplemental briefing on the effect of the Follow- Up Act’s amendments.On December 28, 2022, the trial court issued a 33-page memorandum of decision, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

¶ 11The trial...