Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has illegally destroyed and taken personal property, violating the constitutional rights of business owners, by ordering businesses throughout the state to remain closed as part of his efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, a new federal lawsuit asserts.
On Thursday, May 14, a group of plaintiffs from Chicago’s southwest suburbs, including a Will County board member and two business owners, filed suit in Chicago federal court against Pritzker.
“Despite issuing the COVID-19 Closure Orders for a readily-apparent public purpose, the Governor did not provide compensation for those who suffered substantial – and perhaps total – diminution of value in their property interest as a result,” the complaint said.
The complaint asks the court to order the state to pay “just compensation” to the plaintiffs and potential unspecified classes of business owners and workers throughout the state who have become unemployed as a result of Pritzker’s COVID-19 orders.
The lawsuit is the latest to challenge the governor’s authority to use emergency powers to shut down much of the commerce across the state through his stay at home orders.
Pritzker has repeatedly said the orders are needed to prevent tens of thousands of deaths from the highly contagious novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
The governor has also stated publicly and argued in court he is not prevented by any constitutional amendment or provision, or any state law, from restricting a wide range of constitutional rights as part of the pandemic response. Those restrictions include limits on the rights to travel, operate a business and worship in religious assemblies churches and other houses of worship.
The governor has been challenged in a mounting number of legal actions over those actions. Three churches, for instance, have appealed to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago after two federal district judges ruled the governor has the authority under the Constitution to close churches indefinitely during a pandemic.
Other lawsuits assert the governor exceeded his authority under the Illinois Emergency Management Act. Plaintiffs in those state court cases say the law only gives the governor 30 days to exercise emergency powers after declaring an emergency. After that, they said, the governor needs approval from the Illinois General Assembly.
Pritzker, however, has argued he has the authority under the law to essentially redeclare emergencies every 30 days, and continue to use his emergency powers until he deems the emergency has ended.
To date, two federal judges and a Cook County judge have sided with Pritzker on those questions.
In the latest case, the Will County plaintiffs stake a different claim, asserting Pritzker violated their property rights, and those of business owners throughout Illinois, by essentially seizing their property without compensation. They say the governor’s actions amount to a “regulatory taking,” and violate the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and related private property protections contained in the Illinois state constitution.
The lawsuit is led by named plaintiffs George Pearson, identified as Will County Republican Chairman; Will County Board member Steve Balich; Samantha Palya, ower of Absolutely Pawfect Pet Styling, in Palos Hills; Amanda Hamerman, owner of Color Envy, of Bolingbrook; and Michael Judge, owner of Judge Automotive, a car repair shop, of Oak Forest.
They are represented in the action by attorney Alan R. Bruggeman, of Bruggeman Hurst & Associates P.C., of Mokena.
According to the complaint, Palya estimated she has lost $45,000 in income. Hamerman claims to have lost $60,000. Judge does not estimate his losses in the complaint, but says he has “suffered a decline in his business due to restrictions on travel” which has meant people are “not using their private automobiles, and therefore, (are) not needing repairs.”
Judge said he has been forced to lay off one of his mechanics because of the lost business revenue.
Balich and Pearson asserted the governor’s orders have restricted their ability to represent their political interests and constituents, fundraise, “conduct party business,” campaign and support other candidates, which has also restricted their ability to earn income.