Professional Documents
Culture Documents
___________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
I. Introduction
The People of the State of Illinois, through their attorney, Lisa Madigan,
Attorney General of Illinois, request leave pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(b)
for a direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court of the February 16, 2017 order
entered by the Circuit Court of St. Clair County. In that order, the circuit court
1
denied the Peoples motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction requiring the
Illinois Comptroller to process the full state employee payroll in the absence of
enacted appropriations legislation. S.R. 1. The People argued that the Illinois
the sole legal theory upon which the preliminary injunction was based. S.R. 10-20.
In State v. AFSCME, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the failure to enact
2016 IL 118422, 52. Because the Illinois Supreme Court has rejected the sole legal
claim underlying the injunction, it should be dissolved. On February 21, 2017, the
People filed a notice of interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Rule 307(a), of the February
The Peoples appeal thus presents a clear legal question concerning whether
the executive and legislative branches must enact appropriations legislation for the
payment of the state employee wages required by certain CBAs (or tolling
agreements extending the terms of those CBAs after they expire while the parties
a court may order the continued payment of those wages for years. This question is
implicates when and how the State may obligate and expend public money. The
People acknowledge the interlocutory posture of this case, but urge the Illinois
2
Supreme Courts immediate involvement is necessary and appropriate to resolve this
legislative branches have not had to fulfill their constitutional obligations because of
the legally baseless preliminary injunction. In every other State and at the federal
forces the executive and legislative branches to negotiate and enact appropriations
legislation. In Illinois, in contrast, the legislature and executive have never faced the
true consequences imposed by our constitution and instead have relied on the
preliminary injunction to keep all state government operations running for over
Thus, although the circuit court may have believed that entering the
injunction in 2015 would give the legislative and executive branches necessary
shutdown, the continuation of the injunction has had the opposite effect. The
injunction has allowed the executive and legislative branches to continue to avoid
their constitutional obligation to make the difficult decisions required of them in the
budget process. As a result, serious and collateral damage has been done to the
providers, the vulnerable people they serve, rural transit systems, emergency
telephone systems, companies that provide goods and services to state prisons and
3
other state facilities, and county health departments by the lack of enacted
appropriations legislation.
Further, the circuit courts injunction has spawned many other lawsuits
brought by, for instance, vendors who provide services to the State who have not
been fully paid due to the lack of a complete budget for the last two fiscal years. In
one such suit, dozens of non-profit service providers sued in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, claiming that the failure to pay their contracts in full in the absence of
Illinois Collaboration on Youth v. Dimas, Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. No. 16 CH 6172. While
the circuit court in that case rejected the providers claim, S.R. 173 (this order is on
appeal to the Appellate Court of Illinois for the First Judicial District), many of the
same plaintiffs in that case have now filed a new lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St.
Clair County seeking payments and citing the courts preliminary injunction on state
Appropriations Clause has existed in Illinois since the original 1818 Constitution and
is at the very core of the state governments ability to spend public funds. The
expenditure of the States funds. Yet the circuit courts continuing injunction all but
The legislative and executive branches have had more than enough time to
4
viewed as a short-term buffer against hardship has instead become an indefinite
excuse for the legislative and executive branches to not fulfill their duties. The
People therefore ask the Illinois Supreme Court to restore the responsibility for
expending public funds to the proper branches by ending the judiciarys control of the
This appeal raises a legal question that goes to the foundation of our system of
government and the separation of powers mandated by the Illinois Constitution (see
Ill. Const. art. II, 1). The Illinois Constitution provides that the Governor shall
prepare and submit to the General Assembly . . . a State budget for the ensuing fiscal
year, which shall set forth the estimated balance of funds available for
appropriation at the beginning of the fiscal year, the estimated receipts, and a plan
for expenditures and obligations during the fiscal year[.] Ill. Const. art. VIII, 2(a).
The Constitution further dictates that the Governors [p]roposed expenditures shall
not exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year as shown in the budget.
Clause directs that the General Assembly by law shall make appropriations for all
expenditures of public funds by the State. Ill. Const. art. VIII, 2(b). The public
of state funds. That interest is directly implicated here, where the legal question is
whether the General Assembly must make appropriations for the payment of state
5
employees wages, or whether a court may order the continued payment of those
shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that
year. Id. But during the last two fiscal years, the circuit courts injunctive orders
have allowed billions of dollars in state funds to be spent on employee wages without
injunction thus flouts another basic requirement of the Illinois Constitution and has
given a blank check to the executive branch for state employee wages.
Plaintiffs sole legal theory upon which the preliminary injunction rests is that
the failure to appropriate funds sufficient to pay employees the amounts required by
their CBAs, or the tolling agreements they entered into after those CBAs expired,
Illinois Constitution. S.R. 94-96, 163-65. But in State v. AFSCME, the Illinois
Supreme Court held that the failure to appropriate money could not impair the
obligation of contract because the CBAs were always subject to appropriation, and
the appropriation power rests solely with the General Assembly. 2016 IL 118422,
42, 51-52.
circuit court distinguished State v. AFSCME on the ground that the Illinois Supreme
governed by the Public Labor Relations Act, and that plaintiffs here seek to enforce
6
rights under their tolling agreements.1 The circuit courts analysis, however,
completely ignores the Illinois Supreme Courts principal rationale based on the
Appropriations Clause, id. at 2 ([W]e hold that the arbitration award violates
Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VIII, 2(b)), and section 21 of the Illinois Public
Labor Relations Act (5 ILCS 315/21 (2014)).), and miscomprehends the nature of the
tolling agreements, which did nothing more than continue the parties rights under
the CBAs, which by their terms were subject to appropriation, S.R. 169.
funds. Rule 302(b) permits direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court in cases filed
with the appellate court in which the public interest requires prompt adjudication
by the Supreme Court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 302(b). The Illinois Supreme Court has the
discretion to permit a Rule 302(b) direct appeal from interlocutory orders. Desnick v.
Dept of Profl Reg., 171 Ill. 2d 510, 516 (1996); Garcia v. Tully, 72 Ill. 2d 1, 7 (1978).
The Illinois Supreme Court previously has granted direct review in cases
having a significant effect on the governments finances, see Allegro Servs., Ltd. v.
Metro. Pier & Exposition Auth., 172 Ill. 2d 243, 246 (1996) (challenge to tax for
services or public property, see, e.g., Friends of Parks v. Chi. Park Dist., 203 Ill. 2d
1
At the time of this motion, the transcript of that hearing has not been prepared.
When that transcript is available, the People will seek leave to supplement the
supporting record to include it.
7
312, 314 (2003) (use of public funds for improvements to public park for Soldier Field
expansion); Fumarolo v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 142 Ill. 2d 54, 61 (1990) (public school
reform); and cases concerning public employment, see, e.g., Kanerva v. Weems, 2014
appropriations legislation, see, e.g., Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, 211 Ill. 2d 286, 297-98
(2004) (cost-of-living adjustments to judicial salaries). The instant case falls within
each of these categories and thus further establishes that immediate review by the
process to run its course because the impacts of this situation are dire. Illinois is in
an ever-deepening crisis due to the lack of a complete budget for the last two years,
and lasting economic damage is being wrought on the State.2 The core issue
principle about how the State is supposed to be governed. The answer to that
* * *
2
As of March 6, 2017, the backlog of bills awaiting payment by the State was over $12
billion. See https://ledger.illinoiscomptroller.com/fiscal-condition/. Among the bills
owed by the State are over $4.2 billion in bills for medical treatment provided by
Illinois doctors and hospitals to patients on state health insurance. See Office of the
Illinois Comptroller, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2016 at 4, http://illinoiscomptroller.gov/ioc-pdf/CAFR_2016.pdf. As a direct
result of the unprecedented failure of the state to enact a full budget for two
consecutive years, Fitch Ratings recently downgraded Illinois outstanding general
obligation bonds to the second lowest investment grade rating. See
https://www.fitchratings.com/site/pr/1018455.
8
In sum, the circuit courts refusal to dissolve the preliminary injunction allows
usurpation of the states budgetary process has lasted for two fiscal years, resulting
longer.
Wherefore, the People of the State of Illinois request that the Illinois Supreme
Court direct that the interlocutory appeal of the circuit courts February 16, 2017
for prompt adjudication. The People request that the Illinois Supreme Court order
the appeal to adhere to the briefing schedule provided by Rule 307(a), and that the
Supreme Court set the matter for oral argument in its May 2017 term.
Respectfully submitted,
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General
State of Illinois
DAVID L. FRANKLIN
Solicitor General
State of Illinois
BRETT E. LEGNER
Deputy Solicitor General
100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-2146
Primary email service: civilappeals@atg.state.il.us
Secondary email service: blegner@atg.state.il.us
9
CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
The undersigned certifies under penalty of law as provided in 735 ILCS 5/1-109
(2014) that on March 7, 2017 the foregoing Motion For Direct Appeal Pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 302(b) was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Illinois
Supreme Court, using the i2File system, and was served by e-mail on each person
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
ORDER
THIS CAUSE COMING BEFORE THE COURT on the People of the State of
Illinoiss Motion for Direct Appeal Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(b), and due
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The motion for direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court is ALLOWED /
DENIED
1
2. The matter will proceed pursuant to the briefing schedule set forth by
ENTER:
______________________________
JUSTICE
______________________________
JUSTICE
______________________________
JUSTICE
______________________________
JUSTICE
______________________________
JUSTICE
______________________________
JUSTICE
______________________________
JUSTICE
DATED:________________
Brett E. Legner
Deputy Solicitor General