Eye On Illinois: Material can be dense, but judges’ words well worth reading

Always read the decision.

If you’re at all interested in government or politics, or at least the topics that grab the biggest, boldest headlines, it’s worth taking the time to become familiar with reading judicial decisions.

No disrespect to my colleagues in the reporting and journalistic analysis communities, but when I saw the Friday afternoon news alert about a federal appeals court issuing a ruling regarding what Illinois Democrats call their assault weapons plan, I didn’t want a summary, I wanted the actual words of the actual judges, all 95 pages worth.

For one thing, the actual U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion (tinyurl.com/7thCircuitOpinion) presents significant background, including reviews of the three consolidated cases (two of which themselves the result of upstream consolidation) in which 26 plaintiffs challenged the Protect Illinois Communities Act and three related municipal ordinances.

That feeds into a more important reason the source documents are useful: they enable the reader to focus on the reality in the courtroom. While headlines like “Federal appeals court upholds Illinois’ gun ban” (Capitol News Illinois) are accurate, two sentences from the majority opinion of Judge Diane Wood offer needed context:

“As our account of the proceedings in the district courts shows, we are not here today to rule definitively on the constitutionality of the Act or any of the municipal ordinances. The only issue before us concerns preliminary injunctive relief.”

This lesson echoes August, when headlines proclaimed “Illinois Supreme Court upholds statewide gun ban.” While true, the reality was more nuanced: the 4-3 opinion did not address anyone’s Second Amendment rights, but whether the General Assembly followed its own rules in enacting the legislation.

The General Assembly record arguably proves the dissenting justices correct in their take on Article IV, Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution. But the majority relied on the court’s own precedent known as the “enrolled bill doctrine,” which essentially forces courts to defer to the signature of the House speaker and Senate president attesting lawmakers met all procedural requirements.

Now, as in August, there is no shortage of canned statements from advocates proclaiming the newest ruling demonstrates the constitutionality of the ban, when even the two majority judges (Frank Easterbrook concurred with Wood) clarified that isn’t the case.

Wood and Easterbrook predicted “the state will prevail in its defense.” But only when the issue reaches the U.S. Supreme Court – an inevitability like that of the sun rising in the east – will we get certainty. And even that court is known to give a procedural answer to a constitutional question.

Judge Michael Brennan wrote a dissenting opinion, also well worth the effort. These aren’t breezy reads, but few tools are better at increasing operational understanding.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media. Follow him on Twitter @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.