Effingham, IL -(Effingham Radio)- The latest in the legal battle between Gov. J.B. Pritzker and State Rep. Darren Bailey centers on whether the case will return to the Clay County Courthouse in Louisville or transfer to a federal courtroom in Southern Illinois.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Y. Raoul, whose office represents the governor, has asked a U.S. Magistrate Judge in East St. Louis to deny Bailey’s request to take his lawsuit challenging the legality of Pritzker’s stay-at-home orders back to Clay County, according to a story last week in the Chicago Law Bulletin. Instead, Raoul states Bailey’s claims of civil rights violations are covered by the U.S. Constitution and should be argued in federal court.
The Attorney General’s office has been criticized for alleged “judge shopping” for a favorable ruling, while Bailey is accused of trying to stay in the friendly legal confines of Clay County Circuit Court. The case filed by Greenville attorney Thomas DeVore for James Mainer, the Clay City business owner, could be extended to include all residents in Illinois. DeVore also represents Bailey, a Republican lawmaker and farmer from Xenia, who first started the legal actions against Pritzker.
Raoul and his staff are not getting any support from the U.S. Department of Justice. In a May 22 statement of interest, Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, said Governor of Illinois must comply with state law even during a time of crisis.
“The Governor of Illinois owes it to the people of Illinois to allow his state’s courts to adjudicate the question of whether Illinois law authorizes orders he issued to respond to COVID-19,” said Dreiband. “The United States Constitution and state constitutions established a system of divided and limited governmental power, and they did so to secure the blessings of liberty to all people in our country. Under our system, all public officials, including governors, must comply with the law, especially in times of crisis.”
Steven D. Weinhoeft, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, which covers Clay County where Bailey first filed his lawsuit against Pritzker, explained it did not matter if the Governor had good intentions on issuing consecutive emergency orders against COVID-19, first in March and two orders in April. There is a limit to that power under state law, he said.
“However, well-intentioned they may be, the executive orders appear to reach far beyond the scope of the 30-day emergency authority granted to the Governor under Illinois law,” Weinhoeft said. “Even during times of crisis, executive actions undertaken in the name of public safety must be lawful. And while the people of Illinois must be physically protected from the effects of this public health crisis, including by complying with Centers for Disease Control guidelines their constitutionality guaranteed rights and liberties must be safeguarded as well.”
Raoul argues in a June 5 motion the federal jurisdiction claim for the case is valid because Bailey’s case claimed deprivation of at least four rights guarded by the U.S. Constitution: right to liberty, right to travel, freedom of worship and the right to a republican form of government, the Law Bulletin reported.
“The question is whether Bailey’s state law claims seek redress for violations under color of state law of rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. That he has plainly done in a manner that triggers federal jurisdiction,” Raoul argues.
Adding to Raoul’s frustrations with the lawsuits against the Governor’s orders is the fact he stated a few days ago he has tested positive for COVID-19. He will consult with his staff while being treated and remaining in self-quarantine.
The legal arguments for Pritzker have been rejected twice by Circuit Judge Michael McHaney in Clay County Court, where the case was filed in late April after the third extension of the stay-at-home order by Pritzker. Judge McHaney issued a temporary restraining order against the stay-at-home order being applied to Bailey since the case centered on his rights. At another hearing in May, McHaney refused a defense motion for a change of venue to a Sangamon County courtroom. McHaney in a similar case brought before him by a Clay County tanning salon owner issued a temporary restraining order against the state and strongly criticized the Governor’s actions as akin to “royal decrees” and called it “insanity” for the inconsistencies such as allowing cannabis sales and abortions to continue in Illinois while family-owned businesses faced bankruptcy by the economic shutdown and hospitals were restricted on allowing certain surgical procedures.
The Attorney General states the emergency orders were intended to save lives by lowering the spread of the deadly virus across Illinois.
The Attorney General’s office has pointed out several judges in Illinois have rejected the arguments put forth in Bailey’s case in similar lawsuits against the Governor. The judges ruled those cases were without merit, Thomas Verticchio, a deputy chief Attorney General, stated in Clay County Court last month before Judge McHaney.
For now, the next move in this legal chess match on jurisdiction rests with a federal magistrate in East St. Louis.
(This article was written by Herb Meeker, Effingham County Board Public Information Officer)
Comments