Caulkins v. Pritzker, 2023 IL 129453

Background

The Protect Illinois Communities Act (Pub. Act 102-1116, eff. Jan. 10, 2023) bans sale/purchase/manufacture/import and (after set dates) possession of statutory "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines (LCMs), but exempts (a) seven classes of "trained professionals" (law enforcement, military, licensed security, nuclear guards) and (b) persons who lawfully possessed such items before Jan. 10, 2023 (grandfathered), subject to limits.
Plaintiffs (a pawnshop, two individuals, and a gun-owner association) sued in Macon County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, moving for summary judgment on counts alleging the exemptions violate the Illinois Constitution’s equal protection (art. I, § 2) and special legislation (art. IV, § 13) clauses.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on equal protection and special-legislation claims, applying strict scrutiny and invalidating sections 24-1.9 and 24-1.10; it denied plaintiffs’ three-readings (art. IV, § 8(d)) challenge. Defendants appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.
On appeal plaintiffs also argued for the first time that the substantive restrictions violate the Second Amendment and renewed (but had lost below) a three-readings challenge; defendants disputed those claims and defended the exemptions.
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the circuit court: it held plaintiffs failed to plead similarity to exempt classes (so equal protection and special-legislation claims fail), plaintiffs waived any independent Second Amendment challenge by not pleading it below, and plaintiffs’ failure to cross-appeal the adverse three-readings ruling is a jurisdictional bar to relitigating that claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do the Act’s exemptions (trained professionals and grandfathered owners) violate equal protection?	Exemptions treat law-abiding FOID holders differently from exempted professionals and thus deny equal protection.	Exempt classes differ in relevant respects (statutory training, public-duty, reliance interest); plaintiffs are not similarly situated.	Plaintiffs not similarly situated to trained professionals or (if they already own) to grandfathered owners; equal protection challenge fails.
Do the exemptions constitute forbidden special legislation?	Exemptions create a special economic/commercial franchise for the excepted group, excluding similarly situated citizens.	Special-legislation analysis mirrors equal protection; because classes aren’t similarly situated, the claim fails.	Same result as equal protection: classification not invalid on the record; special-legislation claim fails.
Do the statutory restrictions themselves violate the Second Amendment?	(Raised on appeal) The weapon classification infringes the core right; historical-tradition test not satisfied.	Plaintiffs waived any standalone Second Amendment claim; record is inadequate for the Bruen historical inquiry.	Plaintiffs waived the claim by not pleading or arguing it below; court declines to decide merits and notes factual record would be inadequate for summary disposition.
Did the legislature violate Illinois’s three-readings rule, invalidating the Act?	Plaintiffs argued the Act was not read three days in each house and is therefore invalid.	Defendants note the circuit court rejected this claim and plaintiffs failed to cross-appeal that adverse ruling.	Plaintiffs failed to cross-appeal the denial of full relief on the three-readings claim, so they are jurisdictionally barred from renewing it here.

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment applies to the states via Fourteenth Amendment)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (Second Amendment challenge requires historical-tradition test rather than means-ends scrutiny)
Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064 (summary judgment reviewed de novo; standards for granting summary judgment)
People v. Masterson, 2011 IL 110072 (constitutional challenges reviewed de novo; statute presumed constitutional)
People v. One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236 (facial-challenge standard)
People v. Garvin, 219 Ill. 2d 104 (2006) (principles on facial constitutional challenges)
In re M.A., 2015 IL 118049 (equal protection: threshold ‘‘similarly situated’’ inquiry tied to legislative purpose)
Friends of the Parks v. Chicago Park District, 203 Ill. 2d 312 (2003) (enrolled-bill doctrine and three-readings discussion)
Purze v. Village of Winthrop Harbor, 286 F.3d 452 (7th Cir. 2002) (grandfather provision can render claimant not similarly situated)