How the State is Defending the SAFE-T Act
The Supreme Court chamber in Springfield.
In their final brief before the Illinois Supreme Court hears arguments over the constitutionality of ending cash bail and the controversial SAFE-T Act, the Illinois Attorney General’s office is urging the high court to uphold the law.
The 33-page brief, filed with the Supreme Court Monday by Deputy Solicitor General Alex Hemmer, argued the late-December ruling from Kankakee County Judge Thomas Cunnington that declared the law unconstitutional should be overturned and gave an insight into their arguments.
The argument from State’s Attorneys was because three different points in the state constitution require “sureties,” essentially required money bail remain in the system.
“Plaintiffs’ grab-bag of constitutional theories should be rejected,” Hemmer wrote. “None of these constitutional provisions—much less all three—locks in place the institution of monetary bail. Whether viewed through the lens of [the] 1818 or 1970 [constitution,] the clause does not require the State to maintain a system of monetary bail; rather, it grants criminal defendants a qualified right to seek pretrial release.”
In the plaintiff’s brief filed earlier this month, Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow, a Democrat, argued the General Assembly infringed on the constitutional rights of the judiciary.
“The General Assembly has unduly encroached upon a court's inherent powers by divesting the judiciary of its discretion to consider all the available tools provided under the constitution to balance a defendant's liberty interest with the societal interests of ensuring a defendant's appearance in court and protecting the public,” Glasgow wrote.
Hemmer disagreed.
“The circuit court’s separation-of-powers holding is badly flawed. The court misapplied this Court’s precedent, stating that the General Assembly is “prohibited” from legislating in areas in which courts have inherent authority,” he wrote. “In the end, plaintiffs’ view appears to be that the legislature simply has no serious role to play in regulating pretrial criminal procedure. But that position cannot be reconciled with Hemingway or history.”
The Supreme Court will hear the arguments from both sides on March 14.
