In September, 2022, I filed a motion for declaratory judgement and injunctive relief in my official capacity as Vermilion County State’s Attorney and on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois. The motion requested the Court to find that Public Act 102-1104 violates Article I, section 8.1(a)(9); Article I, section 9; Article II, section 1; and Article IV, section 8(d) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and declare the law null and void. All 64 counties that filed similar motions throughout Illinois were consolidated into Kankakee County, Illinois.
Yesterday, Circuit Judge Thomas Cunnington, Chief Judge of the 21st Judicial Circuit issued his ruling in the case of Rowe, et al. v. Pritzker, et al. Judge Cunnington ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and held that the Pre–Trial Fairness Act, specifically the bail reform and pre–trial release provisions, is unconstitutional. The other provisions of the Safe–T Act where upheld.
The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit were collectively represented by a litigation team consisting of the State’s Attorney and their Assistant State’s Attorneys from Kankakee, Kendall, McHenry, Sangamon, Will, and Vermilion Counties. The Parties argued their positions before Judge Cunnington on December 20, 2022, and yesterday’s ruling concludes the state court action. Any appeal, should the defendants (Governor JB Pritzker, Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Senate President Donald Harmon, and Speaker of the House Christopher Welch) choose to pursue one, must now be filed with the Illinois Supreme Court.
I firmly believe that this well decided ruling affirms that the sacred Constitutional Rights of all of the citizens of the State of Illinois are inalienable. The Pre-Trial Fairness Act alone denies crime victims their constitutional rights. Article 1, section 8.1 of the Illinois Constitution, codified in the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act, mandates that crime victims shall have the right to have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in denying or fixing bail the amount of bail, determining whether to release the defendant, and setting conditions of release after arrest and conviction. Requiring an unwarranted additional presumption of no bail clearly contradicts previously established and superior law, places crime victims at a greater risk to be re–victimized, and unnecessarily subjects witnesses to threats and intimidation.
Judge Cunnington held in his 33 page opinion that “Public Acts 101- 652 and 102-1104 as they relate only to the pretrial release provisions do violate this separation of powers principle underlying our system of governance by depriving the courts of their inherent authority to administer and control their courtrooms and to set bail.”
Honorable Jacqueline M. Lacy, Vermilion County State’s Attorney
