User:CDobo/SAFE-T Act

Criticisms and Challenges
The lawsuits were consolidated into Kankakee County on November 1, 2022 by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Will County
Will County and its State's Attorney James Glasgow filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment and injunction against the Act. A concern alleged in the complain is that there was not sufficient time for State Senators to become acquainted with the changes made in the Bill. The complaint provides an interaction from Senators McClure and Sims showing their confusion about which version of the bill was being presented at the time of voting, and their comments that they only received the 700 page amendment a few days before. Another Senator, Senator noted concern about what the constituents might think of a 700 page amendment being voted on during a lame duck session. The first count of the complaint demands declaratory judgment on the Single Subject Rule that is denoted in Article IV Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution. The Single Subject Rule provides that Bills should be confined to one subject to provide voting senators a clear understanding of what is being voted on. The first count claims that the Act violates this section of the state constitution because it conflates two areas of criminal justice: police reform and bail reform. The second count claims a violation of Article I, Section 9 of the state constitution, which states that "all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties," except in the case of strong evidence of a capital crime. The complaint alleges a violation of this provision stating that the constitution of Illinois explicitly grants its citizens the right to bail, and that Act goes against that by eliminating all cash bail. The third count alleges that the Bill violated the Separation of Powers clause in Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution, which provides that one branch of the government cannot exercise powers that properly belong to another branch. The County claims that the decision regarding whether bail should be given or not must rest with the judiciary branch, as it has been since the state was founded. The Fourth Count claims a violation of the Three Readings Bill rule which requires that amendments to a bill that make changes that substantially depart from the original bill need to be read by name on three separate days before each house. The Complaint alleges that this was requirement was not fulfilled.

McHenry County
McHenry County filed a complaint against the Attorney General seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against bail provisions of the Act. The Complaint included many of the same issues that were brought in Will County's complaint. Among the issues were that the legislative committees did not have enough time to read and comprehend the document, monetary bail is a constitutional right of citizens of Illinois under the State Constitution, and the Act violates the separation of powers clause of the State Constitution. The Complaint also included some studies that asserted that bail reform was not necessary within McHenry County and that implementation of new bail laws would result in a larger burden on the rights of defendants.

Kankakee County
The Kankakee County lawsuit was filed on September 16, 2022 and makes similar challenges as Will County, including the issues of the Single Subject Rule, the bail provision in the constitution, and the Three Readings Rule, but also adds the issue of being unconstitutionally vague. A press release from Kankakee County State's Attorney's Office stated that to make the changes listed in the Pretrial Fairness Act, the state would have to amend the state constitution by referendum, which was last amended in 2014.

Kane County
Concerns regarding the act have also come in through publications from Kane County State's Attorney Jamie Mosser. A notable criticism is that the Pre-Trial Fairness Act denotes non-detainable offenses which mean that an individual committing an offense in that category cannot be detained, even if it is clear that the individual is a potential danger to themselves or others. Another criticism from Mosser is that the Act did not provide funding to the State's Attorney's Offices to help implement the changes, rather the Act expects the counties to fund the programs themselves.

Illinois State Bar Association
The Illinois Bar Journal published articles in June 2022 in support of the implementation of the SAFE-T Act as it was originally drafted. In the publication authored by the Illinois State Bar Association's Steering Committee for Racial Injustice, the committee focused on addressing what they referred to as misconceptions about the Act. The publication noted that in the United States as a whole, around 65% of incarcerated people have not been convicted of a crime but are rather being held on bail. It further explains that roughy 90% of those incarcerated individuals remain incarcerated because they cannot afford bail. According to the publication, the majority of the people that make up these percentages are black. According to studies cited in the publication, black Americans were three times more likely to experience incarceration than white Americans and black defendants that are accused of felonies have a 25% higher chance to be held pretrial than white defendants. Statistics like these are reasons that this particular committee has supported the act, because they believe that it helps to fight racial inequality in the justice system.

Legal challenges timeline
Governer Pritzker issued a Press Release sharing his disagreement with the ruling in Kankakee County and reiterated his position that people should not be subject to detainment simply because of their inability to pay. On January 26, 2023, the Illinois Attorney General filed a brief under the case name Rowe v. Raoul arguing that the claim that the Illinois Constitution requires a monetary bail system, and that many of the other arguments made by challenging counties are flawed. On February 17, 2022, opponents to the SAFE-T Act filed their arguments to be heard in the Illinois Supreme Court. On February 23, 2023, the appellants filed their reply brief in preparation for the upcoming oral arguments. On March 14, 2023 the Supreme Court heard the arguments from both sides, video and audio recordings of the arguments can be found on the Illinois Supreme Court Website.

Illinois Supreme Court Arguments
Three briefs were filed ahead of the arguments heard by the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2023.

Brief by the Defendant-Appellant
The main arguments that the Attorney General and the State pushed in the brief submitted to the supreme court were that the elimination of monetary bail does not violate the state constitution, section 110-1.5 does not violate the bail clause, the bail clause confers a right to seek release which section 110-1.5 secures, the bail clause confers rights on criminal defendants and does not mandate any particular system of pretrial release, section 110-1.5 does not violate the crime victims' rights clause, the Detention provisions do not violate the state constitution, the detention provisions do not unduly infringe upon an inherent judicial power and are facially constitutional, and the detention provisions are severable.

Brief by the Plaintiff-Appellee
The brief filed in response to the Defendant-Appellant brief argued that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring the matter before the Supreme Court of Illinois, the pretrial provisions of the acts violate Article I, Section 9 of the Illinois Constitution, the elimination of monetary bail violates the plain language of Article I, Section 9, the elimination of monetary bail is contrary to the history of the enactment of Article I, Section 9, the Acts deviate from the Constitution's list of potentially nonbailable offenses approved by the Voters through the Constitutional Amendment Process, The Elimination of Monetary bail violates the Illinois Constitution's Crime Victims' rights provision, the Acts violate the separation of powers clause, and the detention provisions are severable. The plaintiff-appellee's brief also requested oral argument in front of the Supreme Court.

Reply Brief by the Defendant-Appellant
The reply brief reiterated the Attorney General's points that the elimination of monetary bail is constitutional, guarantees rights to criminal defendants and does not require the state to maintain a system of monetary bail. It also reiterated that the elimination of monetary bail does not violate the crime victim's rights clause and does not violate the separation of powers.

Oral Arguments
The Oral Arguments began with the Defendant providing reasoning as to why the bail clause did not violate the Illinois Constitution. Specifically that the Plaintiffs misconstrue the reading of the Illinois Constitution that it requires a monetary bail system. The Defendant further argued that the Illinois Supreme Court has never held that it holds ultimate power over monetary bail but rather has the power to hold defendants in instances where there is fear of flight. The Plaintiffs focused on Article 1 Section 9 of the State Constitution that denotes that everyone in the state has a right to monetary bail, and that the Safe-T Act's provisions that eliminate it directly conflict with the State Constitution. The Plaintiffs further argued that the separation of powers are being violated as courts are losing the ability to hold certain defendants if they fall under a certain class of criminal activity.

People v. Lopez
In an unpublished opinion that was decided on March 16, 2023, the Circuit Court of Sangamon County addressed whether an incarcerated person could have an amended sentencing hearing as a result of the SAFE-T Act's implementation. The Court was faced with the question of whether and when does Illinois law allow for statutes to apply retroactively. In this specific instance, the defendant was found guilty of a Class X felony and sentenced to 11 years in prison and 3 years of mandatory supervised release on June 29, 2021. This was two days before provisions of the SAFE-T Act were enacted that reduced the 3 year requirement for mandatory supervised release to 18 months for the Class X felony that the defendant was found guilty of. The Court in this case noted that neither party nor the trial court made any reference to the impending statutory changes while at trial. The Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the defendant did not have a right to resentencing with the new statutory changes as a basis. The Court cited to the specific provision of the SAFE-T Act that regarded mandatory supervised release and noted that it specifically stated that it applied to individuals convicted on or after July 1, 2021.

People v. Stewart
In an unpublished opinion that was decided on October 20, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified intent of the legislature using the SAFE-T Act as the basis for the intent. The issue at hand was whether a crime committed by the defendant when he was 17 should be aggregated toward a Class X felony. A Class X felony can arise if the defendant has been convicted of a combination of Class 1 and Class 2 felonies prior to the new charge. In this case, if the crime committed at 17 years old was considered a juvenile adjudication, then the defendant would have avoided a Class X felony charge because the crime committed as a juvenile would neither be a Class 1 or 2 charge. The trial court found that it was not a juvenile adjudication and the defendant was charged with a Class X felony. On appeal, the appellate court determined that it was a juvenile adjudication and the State then appealed. The questions addressed by the Illinois Supreme Court was whether conflicting holdings in appellate level courts were addressed by the legislature. The Court held that the legislature did clarify its intent with regard to juvenile adjudication when on July 1, 2021, part of the SAFE-T Act was enacted stating that any crimes committed when the defendant was under the age of 21, thus the defendant was found to not be charged with a Class X felony.