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.
Usually, these thoughts surface immediately after a monumental ruling. But today it seems appropriate to look back to March 21, 2024, when U.S. District Judge Steve Seeger issued his opinion in a case docketed as Blagojevich v. Illinois – the attempt of a former governor to restore his right to seek public office in Illinois.
“Blagojevich didn’t have a graceful exit from public life,” Seeger wrote. “It was disgraceful. And by the look of things, it wasn’t even an exit. Because Blagojevich wants back in the game, and back on center stage, microphone in hand.”
At the time, Blagojevich was the beneficiary of a presidential commutation of his 14-year federal prison sentence. Today, he is the recipient of a full pardon. But as Seeger made clear, neither development changes the 2009 General Assembly action to impeach and convict the governor or the subsequent vote to bar him from future service.
Blagojevich, acting as his own attorney, sought an injunction on the ban, claiming violations of his own Sixth and 14th Amendment rights and the First Amendment rights of the state’s voters.
“The complaint is riddled with problems,” Seeger continued. “If the problems are fish in a barrel, the complaint contains an entire school of tuna. It is a target-rich environment. The complaint is an Issue-Spotting Wonderland.”
For one thing, Blagojevich tried to sue Illinois as a “person” under a federal code that can’t be used to sue a state or a legislative body – something the U.S. Supreme Court established in 1989. Further, the lawsuit would demand the judicial branch interfere with the legislative’s sole dominion over impeachments while also forcing a federal court to meddle in internal state affairs.
Seeger’s opinion, in addition to being punchy, expertly details constitutional legal history from the Federalist Papers to Nixon and beyond. It underscores the importance of courts respecting jurisdiction, analyzing legal standing and other principles that inform a deeper understanding of the balance and separation of powers generally keeping the American experiment afloat.
All nine pages are available at tinyurl.com/SeegerBlago. You might have your own favorite passage, but this is mine: “The simple reality is that federal courts have no role to play when it comes to a state impeachment. The state legislature decided to remove Blagojevich from public life, and it is not the place of a federal court to bring him back.”
It’s entirely possible to believe Blagojevich isn’t done trying his luck in court. It’s harder to accept any sane jurist will grant his wish.
• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.
:quality(70)/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/shawmedia/55aeee77-0609-4323-931a-c6686fff01e6.png)