The Illinois Supreme Court will decide in coming weeks if a state law enacted by Illinois' Democratic legislative majority and Gov. JB Pritzker should be able to make it harder for Illinois residents to challenge the constitutionality of state laws in court.
Along the way, the state high court could also decide if the state's politically powerful trial lawyers can use the dispute over the constitutionality of that state law to also land a long-sought policy goal, tossing out a longstanding rule governing where lawsuits can be filed in Illinois and allowing lawyers to flood courts in Cook County and other famously plaintiff-friendly venues with lawsuits in pursuit of larger and easier big money verdicts and settlements.
On Jan. 22, the Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments in the case at the heart of the issue, a legal challenge brought by the owner of a Madison County gun shop against two controversial state laws.
Thomas Maag
| The Maag Law Firm
In 2023, the owners of Piasa Armory, a firearms store in downstate Alton, filed suit in Madison County Circuit Court to challenge the constitutionality of the state's so-called Firearm Industry Responsibility Act. That law would allow trial lawyers to sue gun sellers and firearms makers over criminal actions carried out by people who purchased their weapons.
Second Amendment rights advocates and gun makers, including Smith & Wesson, have argued in court and in public statements that the law would allow gun control advocates to use lawsuits to financially devastate gun sellers and restrict the ability of Illinoisans and others to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Trial lawyers have already used the law to sue Smith & Wesson in Lake County Circuit Court, seeking to make the gunmaker pay a potentially huge sum of money because a Smith & Wesson rifle was used to carry out a massacre at a parade in suburban Highland Park in 2022.
However, after Piasa Armory challenged that law, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul moved to transfer that lawsuit from Piasa's home county court to Sangamon County Circuit Court in Springfield.
Raoul said the transfer was mandated under a different law, known as HB3062, which was also enacted in 2023. That law stripped Illinoisans of the right to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of a state law under the state constitution, except in courts in Chicago and Springfield.
Until HB3062 was enacted, Illinois residents could use the legal principle known as general jurisdiction to challenge laws in any circuit court in any of the state's 102 counties.
Raoul, Pritzker and other supporters of HB3062 have said the law is needed to keep cases challenging state laws in just two locations to both allow the state to conserve resources in defending against constitutional challenges to state laws filed in less populated and more remote parts of the state, and to allow constitutional challenges to be filed in courts where the state has asserted judges are likely to have more experience and greater legal acuity to handle such constitutional questions.
They have argued centralizing the cases in just two counties where the state has its primary government offices would decrease the risk of disparate rulings coming from different judges in different places, sowing "chaos and uncertainty."
Critics of the law, however, have asserted HB3062 was politically motivated, as the state's Democratic leadership seeks to keep disputes over constitutionally questionable laws away from judges in the state's more Republican or rural counties. Critics noted the law was passed after Pritzker and his allies suffered a string of defeats in downstate courts.
Madison County Judge Ronald J. Foster Jr. rejected Raoul's attempt to transfer the case, ruling HB3062 was unconstitutional because it denied Piasa Armory their constitutional right to use their home court system in Madison County to challenge the new gun liability law.
Raoul immediately appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. Democrats dominate the state high court, as well, holding a 5-2 majority.
Raoul's team has argued HB3062's jurisdiction limits are constitutional, because Illinoisans still have a right to sue the state, just only in the twon counties that contain Chicago and Springfield.
Raoul has argued it doesn't matter if people seeking to sue the state over potentially unconstitutional laws must travel potentially many hours to pres their claims, while the attorney general's lawyers would need only travel minutes to the courthouses near their main offices in Springfield and Chicago.
When the case landed before the Illinois Supreme Court, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association filed a so-called amicus, or friend-of-the-court brief, ostensibly in support of the state.
But the ITLA filing went much further, urging the state Supreme Court to use the Piasa Armory case to abolish a legal rule that currently limits where certain kinds of lawsuits can be filed.
Known as intrastate forum non conveniens, the rule, established decades ago by the Illinois Supreme Court, largely requires lawsuits to be filed in a county in which a defendant is located or where an injury or other transaction relevant to the legal claims occurred.
Businesses operating in Illinois have used the doctrine to persuade courts that plaintiffs have violated their rights by engaging in so-called "forum shopping," suing them in plaintiff-friendly courts, rather than in a different county court closer to their base of operations.
In their amicus brief, however, the ITLA argued that forum rule is no longer needed to ensure all parties maintain proper and equal access to the courts.
They argued modern telecommunications technology, such as live videostreaming and e-filing, has rendered local in-person court proceedings unnecessary.
And the trial lawyers argued the rule is unfair to plaintiffs, because they say the principle of general jurisdiction should allow them to sue businesses and other defendants in any Illinois state court they wish.
The trial lawyers, however, supported the ability of Illinois state officials to limit where the state can be sued.
Should the Illinois high court agree with ITLA's reasoning, it could result in a scenario in which Illinois residents would have the right to sue in any Illinois county court they wish - except if those Illinois residents want to use the state courts to stop the state government from enforcing potentially unconstitutional state laws.
The trial lawyers' brief spurred business groups to respond with an amicus brief of their own, warning the state high court that ending intrastate forum non conveniens would "create a downward spiral," swamping certain courts with the bulk of the state's lawsuits and harming the state economy and society, while trampling certain constitutional rights.
During the hearing Jan. 22, Illinois Supreme Court justices only briefly touched on the forum non conveniens questions, potentially signaling an unwillingness from most justices to go as far as the trial lawyers would have liked.
Rather, justices appeared to center their questions on precisely how HB3062 may have harmed Illinoisans' rights to due process and access to the courts.
On one side, Illinois Deputy Attorney General Alex Hemmer argued a 1990 Illinois Supreme Court decision set the standard the court should apply in reviewing HB3062. In that decision, Hemmer said, a prior state Supreme Court held the state is free to restrict where certain legal actions can be filed, unless plaintiffs can show the rules all but shut them out of the court or prevent them from defending themselves.
Hemmer further argued that upholding the ruling from Madison County striking down HB3062 would open the door to a potential flood of similar legal claims accusing the state of depriving people of due process, forcing the state to defend every government action in courts throughout the state. Currently, state law limits, for instance, where Illinois residents are allowed to challenge state administrative agency decisions.
Justices pushed back on some of the state's arguments.
Justice P. Scott Neville, a Democrat, questioned how the state could argue that any county court anywhere in the state is inconvenient or difficult for them to access, when Attorney General's office has personnel throughout the state.
And Justice David Overstreet, a Republican, questioned why the state believes it isn't "unreasonable and arbitrary" for the state to force people in all parts of the state to travel to either Chicago or Springfield to go to a court presided over by judges they had no vote or voice in electing, to press a claim that the state has enacted a law that violates their constitutional rights.
"Why is that not blatant forum shopping?" Overstreet asked.
Some justices noted that the courts also hold the power now to deal with similar cases filed against the state in multiple counties by consolidating them in front of a single judge in Springfield or elsewhere to reduce the chances of differing decisions from multiple judges.
They noted the court already did so with challenges to several recent controversial and constitutionally questionable state laws banning so-called "assault weapons" and abolishing cash bail for criminals, and when dealing with controversial and legally questionable executive orders issued by Gov. Pritzker for years in the name of fighting the spread of Covid.
The justices, however, seemed more skeptical of arguments presented by attorney Thomas Maag, who represented Piasa Armory.
Led by state Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis, justices peppered Maag with questions.
Some justices asked if whether, as the attorney general suggested, a decision in favor of Piasa Armory striking down HB3062 could undermine other state laws limiting where lawsuits can be filed, particularly to challenge state government agency decisions.
Maag drew a distinction between constitutional legal challenges, like the one being pressed by Piasa Armory, and filings seeking to overturn agency decisions. He particularly noted that courts hearing challenges to agency decisions actually act as a court of appeal, limited in their power to review. By contrast, courts handling constitutional challenges to state law act as the originating trial court.
Theis particularly questioned whether the inconvenience of "having to drive 90 miles" from Madison County to Springfield to press their case really meant HB3062 violated the due process rights of the owners of Piasa Armory, and potentially other Illinoisans who may need to travel long distances to court in Chicago and Springfield.
Maag said HB3062 violates the due process rights of everyone living in any county other than Cook or Sangamon, because only those county's residents will be able to sue the state in their home county courts before judges they had the right to vote on.
Maag, however, also said the traveling distance is more than just a mere inconvenience. He said it can greatly impact not only how someone will challenge a law, but even if they believe they can afford to take on the extra time and expense, limiting their "meaningful access to the courts."
He said the imbalance is noticeable when comparing the burden placed on challengers to the alleged burden faced by the state, should they be forced to defend laws in courts other than in Cook and Sangamon counties.
"Especially when there is no compelling interest or reason to force you to litigate in a foreign jurisdiction or county, except that the state doesn't like being sued in different counties," Maag said.
The Supreme Court has not yet delivered a decision. It is not known when they will deliver an opinion in the matter.