The Unacknowledged Clash Between the Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Religion Clauses and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and UC Davis law professor emeritus Alan Brownstein comment on a largely unacknowledged clash between religious accommodations and exemptions on the one hand, and core free speech principles which the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, on the other. Amar and Brownstein describe this apparent conflict and suggest that the Court begin to resolve the conflict when it decides two cases later this term presenting the question of the scope of the “ministerial exception.”

Read More

West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. TRRS Corp.

Citation: 2019 IL 124690

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Thomas L. Kilbride

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

West Bend's insurance policy required that TRRS provide timely notice of a covered worker’s injury. TRRS employee Bernardino was injured in the scope of his employment. West Bend claimed that TRRS did not timely report Bernardino’s injury but paid Bernardino’s lost wages and medical expenses relating to the injury without West Bend’s knowledge or permission. West Bend sent TRRS a reservation of rights letter, stating that West Bend would not reimburse any voluntary payments they made in connection with Bernardino’s injury. Bernardino filed a claim with the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission (IWCC) and filed a separate negligence action against several defendants, including his employers. West Bend sought a judgment declaring that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify TRRS then filed an emergency motion to stay the pending IWCC proceeding. Bernardino argued that West Bend had not sufficiently proved that it had issued an insurance policy covering the worksite where he was injured, precluding the circuit court from making a coverage determination. The circuit court entered an order staying the IWCC proceedings, finding that it had "primary jurisdiction." The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court disagreed. The primary jurisdiction doctrine generally “provides that where a court has jurisdiction over a matter, it should in some instances stay the judicial proceedings pending referral of a controversy, or some portion of it, to an administrative agency.” A trial court cannot rely on that doctrine to stay IWCC proceedings.

Johnson v. Department of State Police

Citation: 2019 IL 124213

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Mary Jane Theis

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Department of State Police revoked Johnson’s Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65/8(n) due to her conviction for a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. That conviction prohibited her from possessing firearms under federal law. Johnson sought judicial relief. The circuit court held that section 922(g)(9) of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), and several provisions of the FOID Card Act, which incorporate that federal statute, were unconstitutional as applied to Johnson. The court ordered the Department to reissue Johnson’s FOID card. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on different grounds, vacating the circuit court’s findings that the state and federal statutes are unconstitutional as applied to Johnson. Under the federal Act, “civil rights” include firearm rights and Johnson fits an exemption for those who have had their “civil rights restored” following a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence. Illinois’s regulatory scheme (430 ILCS 65/10(c)(1)-(3), which affirmatively provides for a “status-altering dispensation” under section 10 of the FOID Card Act sufficiently fulfills Congress’s intent to “defer to a State’s dispensation relieving an offender from disabling effects of a conviction.” Granting Johnson relief is not contrary to federal law.

People v. Moore

Citation: 2019 IL 124538

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Thomas L. Kilbride

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2013, Moore was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) stemming from a traffic stop in Joliet. His prior felony was a 1990 murder conviction. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting an argument that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to stipulate to Moore’s felon status, thereby allowing the jury to consider highly prejudicial evidence that Moore’s prior conviction was for murder. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded. This type of prior conviction evidence generally has little probative value and creates a high risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The jury was faced with two plausible versions of events that depended on witness credibility. The evidence was closely balanced, so informing the jurors that the defendant was previously convicted of murder made Deputy Hannon’s version more plausible and tipped the scales against Moore. There was a reasonable probability of a different result, had defense counsel prevented the jury from being informed of the nature of the prior felony conviction. There was sufficient evidence that the jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so double jeopardy does not preclude a new trial.

People v. Ashley

Citation: 2019 IL 123989

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Neville

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Ashley was convicted of stalking (720 ILCS 5/12-7.3(a)(2), (c)(1) and was sentenced to serve 18 months’ imprisonment. The appellate court and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting his arguments that the provisions of the stalking statute under which he was convicted are facially unconstitutional in violation of the first amendment and substantive due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. The statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad; it does not criminalize protected speech consisting of threats to engage in lawful, nonviolent behavior. The amended statute requires two or more threats that the defendant knows or should know would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress; the legislature intended that the term “threatens” refers to “true threats” of unlawful violence such as bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, and restraint, as set forth in other subsections. The statute that the accused be consciously aware of the threatening nature of his speech and the awareness requirement can be satisfied by a statutory restriction that requires either an intentional or a knowing mental state. The term “threatens” is readily susceptible to a limiting construction and does not cover negligent conduct. The statute is not susceptible to arbitrary enforcement.

People v. Roddis

Citation: 2019 IL 124352

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Rita B. Garman

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Roddis was convicted of aggravated domestic battery and sentenced to six years in prison. The trial court dismissed as untimely Roddis’s pro se motion for reduction of his sentence that also alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel. The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence but remanded for a “Krankel” hearing. On remand, the trial court conducted a “pre-inquiry Krankel hearing” to determine if the allegations of ineffective assistance were founded, at which point the court would appoint separate counsel and proceed to a “full-blown” Krankel hearing. The court conducted a hearing with Roddis and his previous counsel, giving Roddis the opportunity to elaborate on his allegations and allowing counsel to respond. The court ruled that the allegations did not establish ineffective assistance. The appellate court, finding that the trial court should not have decided the merits at that initial hearing, remanded. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the trial court judgment. Even in preliminary Krankel inquiries, a trial court must be able to consider the merits in their entirety when determining whether to appoint new counsel on a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This serves both the ends of justice and judicial economy. After scrutinizing the record, the court found that Roddis received effective assistance and was not prejudiced by his attorneys’ performance. The court rightfully exercised its discretion to decline to appoint new counsel to address his pro se posttrial claims.

Hess v. Estate of TJay Klamm

Citation: 2019 IL 124649

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Anne M. Burke

Areas of Law: Contracts, Insurance Law

Kiselewski was driving with his two granddaughters in the backseat. Klamm's vehicle crossed the center line and struck Kiselewski’s vehicle. Kiselewski, one granddaughter, and Klamm were killed. Klamm was insured under a Meridian policy issued to his mother that provides coverage for four vehicles. The policy contains an “antistacking clause” with respect to bodily injury liability limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. In a declaratory judgment action, the circuit court found that the policy, taken as a whole, was ambiguous and declared that Meridian had a duty under the policy to aggregate the bodily injury coverage limits for all four vehicles covered by the policy, resulting in coverage in the amount of $400,000 per person and $1.2 million per accident. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. When the declarations are read together with the antistacking clause, there is no ambiguity. The policy provides bodily injury liability coverage of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, regardless of the number of claims, insureds, covered vehicles, premiums, or vehicles involved in the accident. The policy does not list liability limits separately for each covered vehicle. It lists the limits once on the first page of the declarations, next to Autos 1, 2, and 3, and once on the second page, next to Auto 4.

People v. King

Citation: 2019 IL 123926

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Robert R. Thomas

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Convicted of the 2014 first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) of his wife, Kathleen, King was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Kathleen’s body was found on railroad tracks near the family’s home. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that King’s motion for substitution of the judge was properly denied after the judge had made a substantive ruling; that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, such that retrial would not violate double jeopardy principles; that the testimony of a crime scene analyst (Safarik) was inadmissible in its entirety because the opinions he rendered were either beyond his qualification or involved conclusions that the jurors easily could draw for themselves without any expert assistance; that portions of other testimony were unduly inflammatory; and that the state’s comments in closing argument about the reasonable doubt standard were improper. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed in part. The motion for substitution was untimely, coming after the judge ruled on a motion to obtain cell phone records. Safarik’s inadmissible testimony was not harmless. The trial court should have excluded some brief foundational testimony by a friend about the closeness of her relationship with Kathleen and the state improperly attempted to define and dilute its burden of proof during its closing argument.

In re Hernandez

Citation: 2019 IL 124661

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Lloyd A. Karmeier

Areas of Law: Health Law, Personal Injury, Public Benefits

In 2009-2011, Hernandez sustained on-the-job injuries and received medical treatment. In 2016, she filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and reported unsecured claims held by three health care providers to whom she owed $28,709.60, $58,901.20, and $50,161.26 respectively. She reported minimal assets: $1300 in bank accounts and her pending workers’ compensation claim, valued at $31,000. Two days after filing her petition, Hernandez settled her workers’ compensation claim for $30,566.33 without consulting the bankruptcy trustee. She believed the settlement was exempt under section 21 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/21). That statute provides: “No payment, claim, award or decision under this Act shall be assignable or subject to any lien, attachment or garnishment, or be held liable in any way for any lien, debt, penalty or damages….” The health care providers objected; the district court ruled in their favor. The Illinois Supreme Court answered a question of Illinois law certified by the Seventh Circuit: After the 2005 amendments to section 8 of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the enactment of section 8.2 of the Act, section 21 of the Act does exempt the proceeds of a workers’ compensation settlement from the claims of medical-care providers who treated the illness associated with that settlement or injury.