The response from the Court is maddening and neatly side-steps most of the issues raised by Plantiffs. They basically say, "well Plantiffs can't point to any direct comments" made by the Justices that would show bias. They then say it's entirely reasonable for candidates to receive campaign contributions, but don't address the issues of the greater than $1M given to each Justice, by the Governor, who happens to be a named defendant in the suit. Basically said the Plantiffs were judge shopping. For reference, campaign contributions are limited in IL to $500k.
As part of the motion, Plantiffs established, or tried to establish, groundwork for a Due Process violation of the US Constitution should the Justices not be recused.
There was another motion for an amici brief filed by 34 State's Attorneys on behalf of Plantiffs that looked at the matter from a 2nd Amendment standpoint and asked the Court to reject the Act based on this (namely the Bruen text). However, the court declined the motion, stating that Plantiffs never made such a 2nd Amendment claim and instead relied on Equal Protection and to introduce now 2nd Amendment claims would harm the Defendants, and further the claim cannot be considered before the court in appeal because it wasn't introduced before a lower court. Thus, motion denied. [1]
Another amici motion in support of Plantiffs has been filed by DeVore, attorney in the Effingham County case, and asks the Court to consider the constitutional procedural violations in this case, namely that the Act was not read, at large, three times in each body of the house over a period of six days. The Act, DeVore says, started life as an innoccus bill to change insurance code, and remained as such for 345 days, when, on a Sunday the entire body of the bill was changed to the current gun legislation, keeping the bill title and number the same. Then, two days later on day 347, the Act was passed. This, DeVore says, is a clear procedural violation and points to supporting evidence by the Court.
This procedural violation is a key component of the Effingham case, in which the judge found for Plantiffs and granted a TRO. DeVore asserts that the case in Macon County, is a copy-paste of the Effingham case. The judge in the Macon case, following binding precedent from the Effingham case, ruled for the plantiffs on Equal Protection grounds but did not address the procedural violations. DeVore points to a IL Supreme Court decision from 2007 that states "a reviewing court can uphold the decision of the circuit Court on any grounds which are called for by the record regardless of whether the circuit Court relied on the grounds". So, this is how DeVore is attempting to get the Court to hear the procedural issue in the Macon case (compare to the amici brief on 2nd Amendment claims, which was rejected for introducing new claims).
DeVore also states, and provides evidence, that the IL legislature has been openly flaunting this procedure for decades and that the Court has but issued (stern?) warnings that they may not allow this behavior to continue. DeVore then asks the Court to, if they will not enforce this part of the constitution, be forthright with the people of Illinois and come out and say it to the people.
1: The Court also mentions that, had such a 2nd Amendment claim been made, Defendants would nevertheless deny it violates the 2nd Amendment and "so have a number of other courts" and point to cases in Naperville (IL), Rhode Island, Delaware.
