Supreme Court Takes Up SAFE-T Act
The Supreme Court chamber in Springfield.
Two State’s Attorneys will argue before the Illinois Supreme Court this morning that justices should rule the controversial cash-bail elimination provision of the so-called SAFE-T Act is unconstitutional.
Kankakee County State’s Attorney Jim Rowe and Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow, both Democrats, challenged the law in court last fall. In December, a Kankakee County judge ruled parts of the law are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court put a stay on the law on New Year’s Eve the day before the law was set to take place.
There are three specific provisions in the constitution the circuit court says the state is required to use a monetary bail system: the bail clause, the crime victim’s rights amendment passed in 2014, and the separation of powers clause.
In the plaintiff’s brief filed with the court last month, 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.
In his brief, Deputy Solicitor General Alex 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.”
Justices will likely focus on the bail definition and the idea that the legislature has the right to encroach on the actions of the judicial branch, known as separation of powers.
“Plaintiffs’ response brief identifies no persuasive reason to affirm the circuit court’s sweeping decision striking down the pretrial release provisions,” he wrote. “The court reasoned that three separate provisions of the Illinois Constitution independently require the State to maintain a system of monetary bail, and that only courts—not the Illinois General Assembly—can regulate the conditions under which criminal defendants may be detained pending trial. Those unprecedented holdings are incorrect, and would effectively bar the General Assembly from ever reforming pretrial procedures in the State.”
Rowe did not return a message from The Illinoize Monday to discuss the case.
Also Monday, Governor JB Pritzker took an antagonist tone when asked about the case (and challenges to the state’s assault weapons ban).
“It’s the last refuge of those who can’t win at the ballot box to take something to court to try to have it overturned, even though they are wrong when they say its unconstitutional,” Pritzker said at an unrelated news conference Monday. “I think the Supreme Court will give it a fair hearing, but I can tell you that all of the lawyers and people who were involved in crafting the legislation feel confident that it will come out the right way.”
