A lawyer representing hundreds of students and their families in lawsuits against Gov. JB Pritzker and dozens of school districts across Illinois, has accused Pritzker of "judge shopping" in trying to transfer all legal challenges to his school mask mandates to judges in either Chicago or Springfield.
Lawyers for the Pritzker administration “make a creative argument that Cook County is somehow the best location to have this matter heard given the number of districts which could be potentially impacted,” wrote attorney Tom Devore in a brief filed Nov. 1.
“Such analysis is not found anywhere in Illinois jurisprudence and is assuredly venue shopping at its finest.”
Macoupin County Judge April Troemper
| ISBA.org
On Oct. 29, Pritzker, through Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, filed a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court, asking the state high court to consolidate several cases now pending in various counties in Illinois, including cases in Chicago’s suburbs and downstate.
All of these cases challenge executive orders issued by Pritzker, as well as “emergency rules” created by the Illinois Department of Public Health, and “guidance” issued by the Illinois State Board of Education, requiring schools to force students to wear masks indoors, in keeping with Pritzker’s mask mandate.
The lawsuits seek court orders declaring Pritzker and the state agencies lack the authority to order students to wear masks in school or to exclude students from school over COVID concerns. They also seek court orders blocking school districts from enforcing Pritzker’s orders.
The cases are now pending in Sangamon County, Vermilion County, Macoupin County, Kendall County and Montgomery County, along with one case in Cook County.
In their motion, Pritzker and Raoul asked the Supreme Court to then transfer all of the prospective consolidated cases to a judge in Cook County, or, alternatively, to a Sangamon County judge in Springfield.
Pritzker and Raoul argue the similarities in the cases should require them to be heard by one judge in one court, rather than multiple judges in different court systems.
Further, they argue the cases should be heard in Cook County because doing so would “maximize convenience” for the majority of the students who might be affected by the decisions in these cases live in Cook County, and the majority of the school districts named as defendants in the cases.
If not Cook County, Pritzker and Raoul assert Sangamon County court is the correct destination, as it is the state capitol.’
In a response filed on Nov. 2, Devore, of Silver Lake Legal Group, of downstate Greenville, said his clients agreed the cases should be consolidated. Further, they generally would not oppose moving the case to Sangamon County.
Devore noted he had filed a massive action against dozens of school districts across the state in court in Macoupin County, which, like Sangamon County, is included within Illinois’ Seventh Judicial Circuit.
However, Devore said his clients opposed moving the case to Cook County. Devore argued such a move is not supported by court rules or the law in Illinois.
Further, Devore said the state high court should “ask itself why” Pritzker would seek to transfer a case from Macoupin County to Sangamon County, within the same judicial circuit.
“The only readily apparent reason is judge shopping,” Devore wrote. “… Other than geography, they are for all intents and purposes the same court. The only practical difference between Sangamon and Macoupin could potentially be the judge that hears the case.”
Devore said the state’s consolidation and transfer request should particularly raise eyebrows at this time, because he asserted he and the Illinois Attorney General’s office had a deal, in writing, to consolidate all of the mask mandate cases in Macoupin County.
In his filing to the state Supreme Court, Devore included emails in which he said the deal is spelled out. Devore said that agreement was also already communicated to a Macoupin County judge presiding over the case.
Devore noted several plaintiffs in cases filed in other counties agreed to voluntarily dismiss their cases in those counties, “based upon the mutual promise by the Attorney General’s Office to seek transfer and consolidation of any similar existing cases into Macoupin County.”
“For reasons unknown to Attorney Devore, the State Defendants broke the agreement and instructed the Attorney General’s Office to request transfer of all matters to a county other than Macoupin,” Devore wrote.
“Should this Honorable Court allow this relief to the State Defendants, the Plaintiffs which agreed to have their matters consolidated into Macoupin County, will have given up their rights without the State Defendants having to follow through with the agreement.”
Devore asked the Illinois Supreme Court to transfer all of the cases to Macoupin County, under Judge April Troemper, who has presided over the mask mandate case pending in that court.
The Illinois Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the requests.