article: COVID-19 Summary: In this case filed on April 23, 2020 by an Illinois State Representative, an Illinois Circuit Court judge issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Governor of Illinois from enforcing the state's stay at home order against the plaintiff. Later, the judge declared that both the Governor's extension of the stay at home order and the order itself exceeded his authority. The Illinois Supreme Court transferred this case to consolidate it with other COVID-19-related litigation, and the Governor is seeking to vacate the original judge's declaratory judgment.<hr> On April 23, 2020, an Illinois State Representative filed this lawsuit suit in the Clay County Circuit Court. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sued the Governor of Illinois under state law, asserting that the governor lacked authority under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act (the Act) to extend the state's stay at home order through the end of April. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the extended stay at home order was "in excess of the authority granted . . . under the act." The plaintiff also sought to enjoin the Governor from enforcing the extended stay at home order against the plaintiff. This case arose from Illinois' response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 9, 2020, the Governor issued a proclamation under the Act declaring that the COVID-19 pandemic was a public health emergency rising to the level of a disaster. The Act conferred on the Governor emergency powers for 30 days following the declaration. Under his emergency powers, the Governor issued an executive order on March 20 requiring that Illinois residents only leave their home for essential activities or business. This executive order was effective until April 8. On April 1, the Governor declared that the COVID-19 pandemic was a "continuing public health emergency" and issued an executive order extending the stay at home requirement until April 30. The plaintiff asserted that under the Act, the Governor lacked the authority to extend the March 20 executive order beyond April 8, which was 30 days after the initial disaster declaration. The plaintiff further alleged that the executive order "limit[ed] [the plaintiff's] constitutionally protected freedoms in that it ordered him to stay at home, or at his place of residence, as well as limited his ability to travel within the state." The plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), asserting that the executive order was causing irreparable harm by ordering him to stay at home and avoid travel. The same day, Judge Michael McHaney granted the the plaintiff's motion for a TRO and enjoined the Governor from enforcing the stay at home order against the plaintiff. Judge McHaney found that the plaintiff "has a clearly ascertainable right in need of immediate protection, namely his liberty interest to be free from [defendant's] executive order of quarantine in his own home." Judge McHaney also concluded that the plaintiff had a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm if a TRO were not issued, and had no adequate remedy at law. The Governor immediately appealed to the Fifth District Appellate Court and filed an emergency motion for direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. Before the appellate court could rule, the plaintiff consented to the vacating of the TRO, and the matter was remanded to the circuit court on May 1. On May 13, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff maintained his argument that the Governor exceeded his authority in extending the stay at home order. In addition, the plaintiff asserted that the April 30 disaster proclamation was void because the continuing public health emergency failed to meet the statutory definition of a disaster. The plaintiff further argued that the governor "had no Illinois constitutional authority to restrict citizen's movement or activities and/or forcibly close the business premises" and that this authority was delegated to the Department of Health. On May 18, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 21, the Governor removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. He asserted that the district court had federal question jurisdiction because the "action seeks redress for alleged deprivations of [plaintiff's] federal constitutional rights caused by actions taken under color of state law." He asserted that the action sought to redress the "alleged deprivation of [plaintiff's] . . . First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process, his right to interstate travel, and the right to a Republican Form of Government conferred by Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution." The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison. Later that day, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion to remand the case. The plaintiff argued that the matter raised "nothing but questions concerning Defendant's authority under certain Illinois statutes" and asserted that the defendant was "intent on forum shopping and want[ed] nothing more than to derail state court proceedings." Plaintiff further contended that "Whether or not Defendant’s actions infringe on rights existing under the United States Constitution is irrelevant to and mentioned nowhere in Plaintiff’s complaint or first amended complaint" and that "the core of Plaintiff’s causes of action, is not 'capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.'” Plaintiff additionally sought expedited relief and attorneys' fees. A day later, on May 22, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest supporting the plaintiff's motion "because the plaintiff makes no federal claim." First, the DOJ asserted that the defendant misread the amended complaint and that "plaintiff has elected to proceed on only state law claims, and removal is thus improper." Moreover, the DOJ contended that the Governor exceeded his authority when issuing the executive orders. Lastly, the DOJ argued that while the case had federal implications, these implications were not sufficient to support removal. On June 29, 2020, Judge Sison remanded the case. While calling the decision "a close call," Judge Sison reasoned that the "most straightforward reading" of the amended complaint was that the plaintiff sued under the Illinois declaratory judgment statute seeking resolution of state-law questions about the extent of the Governor's power; any implicit federal constitutional issues were "not central" to the case. Judge Sison also rejected the Governor's argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (a largely defunct statute that allows civil rights plaintiffs to sue in federal court regardless of the amount in controversy, useful decades ago when 28 U.S.C. § 1331 had an amount in controversy requirement) conferred broader jurisdiction than § 1331. However, Judge Sison rejected the plaintiff's motion for fees, finding that removal was non-frivolous since the complaint referred to constitutional rights. 2020 WL 3498428. Three days later, Judge McHaney granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff. Judge McHaney declared that the Governor's second and third disaster proclamations were void because they arose from the same "occurrence or threat" that gave rise to the first proclamation yet extended beyond the Act's 30-day limit. Judge McHaney also declared that the proclamations' substantive provisions were invalid because the Act did not give the Governor "any authority to restrict a citizen's movement or activities." In addition, Judge McHaney held that the decision applied to all citizens of Illinois. But he declined to issue an injunction and denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims that COVID-19 did not meet the Act's definition of a disaster. On July 7, the Governor moved to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claim that COVID-19 was not a disaster under the Act. Meanwhile, the plaintiff felt that the Governor had not complied with the circuit court's summary judgment ruling. So, he filed a motion to hold the Governor in civil contempt on August 5, 2020. In response, the circuit court on August 7 issued the Governor a show cause order. The Governor sought a supervisory order from the Illinois Supreme Court, which stayed the contempt hearing on August 11 but refused to issue a supervisory order. Instead, the Court ordered this case consolidated with <i>Craig v. Pritzker</i>, No. 20 MR 589, in the Sangamon County Circuit Court before Judge Raylene D. Grischow. After consolidation, the Governor promptly filed a motion to vacate the Clay County Circuit Court's July 2 summary judgement decision for lack of jurisdiction. That motion is pending as of October 12, 2020; the case is ongoing.
summary: On April 23, 2020, an Illinois State Representative filed this suit against the Governor of Illinois in Illinois circuit court, asserting that the governor exceeded his authority under state law by extending a stay at home order for more than 30 days in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The circuit court granted a temporary restraining order for plaintiff, but during an appeal, the plaintiff agreed to have it vacated. On May 21, defendant removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern Illinois, and the federal court remanded the case on June 29. The Illinois circuit court declared the extension of the stay at home order invalid on July 2 but denied injunctive relief. After the plaintiff tried to have the Governor held in contempt, the Illinois Supreme Court transferred and consolidated the case with other ongoing COVID-19 litigation.