Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, accused in lawsuits of violating state law and the constitution by overextending his emergency powers amid the COVID pandemic, has asked the Illinois Supreme Court to issue an order effectively ending legal challenges to his authority to order Illinois residents to limit gatherings, close businesses and stay home.
On May 1, Pritzker filed a motion with the state’s high court, requesting a so-called supervisory order, effectively preemptively declaring Pritzker the winner in the legal fight over the governor’s authority to rule by executive order for as long as COVID-19 renders the state a disaster area.
The governor’s motion came in response to a move by State Rep. Darren Bailey (R-Xenia) to withdraw from a temporary restraining order he had secured from a judge in southeastern Illinois.
Bailey had sued Pritzker at the end of April, after the governor announced his intent to extend his stay at home order until the end of May. The governor said the extension was necessary to “save lives” and continue to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
In the lawsuit, Bailey asserted the governor had exceeded his power in extending the stay at home order and other executive orders. Bailey argued the Illinois Emergency Management Act only allowed the governor to claim his sweeping emergency powers for 30 days. Beyond that, he needed to secure approval from the Illinois General Assembly, Bailey argued.
Clay County Judge Michael McHaney sided with Bailey, granting him a restraining order, essentially blocking Pritzker from enforcing the stay at home order against Bailey, individually.
Pritzker appealed to the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court in Mt. Vernon. He also petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to take up the case immediately, and skip the appeals process completely.
Late last week, Bailey petitioned the Fifth District court to vacate the restraining order, and send the matter back to the Clay County court for further proceedings.
However, in a motion to the Illinois Supreme Court, Pritzker and the Illinois Attorney General’s Office asked the court to overlook that maneuver, asserting Bailey was “seeking to manipulate the court system to his advantage,” and should be blocked from doing so.
They said the central question in Bailey’s case – whether the governor can simply extend his emergency powers, “into perpetuity,” as Bailey put it in his lawsuit – has also formed the crux of other legal challenges to the governor’s powers, including in a nearly identical complaint filed by Bailey’s colleague, State Rep. John Cabello (R-Machesney Park). The argument was also presented by a church in Stephenson County, which is challenging Pritzker’s authority to limit the size of religious gatherings.
Pritzker said the state Supreme Court should rule in his favor, now, no matter what Bailey does.
“Resolving that question sooner rather than later, after a period of needless uncertainty over whether the Governor’s executive orders are legally authorized, will greatly serve the public interest,” Pritzker and Raoul asserted in their May 1 motion.
They also noted a federal judge in Chicago, who had been appointed by President Barack Obama in 2011, also sided with the governor on questions related to his authority. U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee ruled in favor of the governor in rejecting the request from The Beloved Church, of Lena, for an injunction against Pritzker's stay at home order and other executive orders related to COVID-19, restricting their church services. The church has indicated it will appeal.
“… He (Bailey) should not be given a veto over where, and when, the courts ultimately decide that issue,” Pritzker and Raoul argued in their motion to the state Supreme Court.