Supreme Court considers legality of law banning ‘venue shopping’ in
constitutional challenges
Send a link to a friend
 [January 23, 2025]
By Andrew Adams
The Illinois Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case
centered on whether a state law passed in 2023 violates the due process
rights of Illinoisans outside Sangamon and Cook counties.
A 2023 law restricts certain types of lawsuits – namely challenges to a
law’s constitutionality – to courts in those two counties. The law came
in response to challenges to the state’s COVID-19 response, a state law
ending cash bail and the state’s ban on assault weapons, among others.
These lawsuits – often filed in jurisdictions with sympathetic judges –
became a way for some conservatives to make a name for themselves at the
state level. Former governor candidate and state Sen. Darren Bailey,
R-Xenia, and former attorney general candidate Thomas DeVore both backed
high-profile lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state laws.
“There has been considerable judge shopping as a tactic that has been
used by litigants to secure sweeping court orders blocking state
policies by steering cases to judges perceived to be sympathetic to
these causes,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Swansea, said
during debate over the bill two years ago.
The practice of choosing where to file a lawsuit based on a judge’s
record or political leanings is sometimes called “forum shopping” or
“venue shopping.”
In March 2024, the Judicial Conference of the United States – which
makes policy for federal courts – moved to require random judge
assignments for civil cases in federal court that might bar or mandate
government action.
The case before the Illinois Supreme Court was brought by Piasa Armory,
an East Alton gun store. It challenged the constitutionality of an
unrelated firearms regulation, the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act,
which was also signed into law in 2023. That law subjects firearms
groups to civil penalties for violating consumer protection laws.
Piasa Armory almost immediately filed a lawsuit challenging that law in
Madison County, about a 30-minute drive from the gun store. The state
then tried to move the case to Sangamon County – about 90 minutes from
East Alton – citing the then-new law.
But a Madison County judge rejected the state’s attempt to move the
case, saying that the law violated the due process rights of residents
of other counties by “depriving” them of their ability to mount their
best possible case.
“The Circuit Court did so on the thinnest possible record,” Deputy
Solicitor General Alex Hemmer argued on behalf of the state. “Two
declarations asserting that it would be more quote ‘convenient’ to
litigate this case in Madison County rather than here in Sangamon
County, an additional hour away. That showing cannot be enough to
establish that a venue rule violates the due process clause.”
[to top of second column]
|
A statue is pictured outside the Illinois Supreme Court building in
Springfield. (Capitol News Illinois file photo)
Hemmer said the court should “at minimum” rule narrowly against Piasa
Armory based on the record of the case, although the state “would
welcome” an opinion on the law’s constitutionality.
More broadly, the state argued that the law falls within the bounds of
other laws that restrict where certain types of lawsuits can be filed.
These “venue statutes” are generally constitutional under a 1990
Illinois case Williams v. Illinois State Scholarship Commission. That
case carves an exception for laws that are “so arbitrary and
unreasonable as to deprive defendants of due process.”
“The Supreme Court has never held — or even hinted — that a State could
impair a litigant’s right of access to courts simply by setting venue in
an inconvenient forum,” the state argued in a written brief.
In oral arguments, Hemmer also hinted at the policy implications of
striking down the law, noting that the large number of COVID-related
constitutional cases caused “chaos and uncertainty.”
Piasa Armory, represented by Thomas Maag, pointed to the same decision
and the same federal legal test around due process as to why the state’s
venue law is inappropriate.
“It is far more difficult to litigate hours away from your home forum
than it is in your home forum, especially when there’s no compelling
interest or reason to force you to litigate in a foreign jurisdiction or
in a foreign county,” Maag said Wednesday.
Maag’s written briefs also noted that the Williams court case allows a
court to strike down venue statutes when “constitutional provisions are
violated.”
Several advocacy groups filed “friend of the court” briefs presenting
arguments about a related legal doctrine allowing judges to dismiss
cases that could be more conveniently heard somewhere else that some
hope to see overturned.
The case is now under review by the court, which has not indicated when
it will release a decision.
Capitol News Illinois is
a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government
coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily
by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
 |
