Koshinski v. Trame
2017 IL App (5th) 150398
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff David Koshinski held an Illinois FOID card and a concealed carry license; an ex parte emergency order of protection was entered against him on May 4, 2015, without his prior notice.
- Following the ex parte order, Illinois State Police temporarily revoked his FOID card and concealed carry license, and he surrendered/transferred firearms per statutory requirements.
- The emergency order was later modified to a mutual stay-away order after a noticed hearing (May 21, 2015), then vacated (August 6, 2015); the State Police subsequently restored Koshinski’s gun licenses.
- Koshinski sued the Chief of the Firearms Services Bureau (in her official capacity) challenging 430 ILCS 65/8.2 and 430 ILCS 66/70(b) as unconstitutional for revoking firearm rights based on ex parte protective orders without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, and sought declaratory/injunctive relief and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- The trial court dismissed the case as moot after the licenses were reinstated; Koshinski appealed. The appellate court took judicial notice of the circuit-court protective-order records and denied a motion to strike them.
- The Fifth District reversed and remanded, holding the public-interest exception to mootness applied and that dismissal as moot was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do statutes that automatically suspend/revoke firearm licenses upon entry of an ex parte protective order violate constitutional rights by denying notice and hearing? | Koshinski: statutes effect an unconstitutional deprivation of Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights because revocation occurs without prior notice or opportunity to be heard. | Trame: statutes operate per statute; but after reinstatement, plaintiff lacks a live injury so the constitutional claim is moot. | Court did not decide the statutory constitutionality on the merits; it found the case not subject to dismissal as moot under the public-interest exception and remanded for further proceedings. |
| Is the appeal moot after restoration of licenses, or does an exception permit review? | Koshinski: not moot — seeks declaratory/injunctive relief, fees, faces risk of recurrence and collateral consequences; public-interest and capable-of-repetition exceptions apply. | Trame: reinstatement eliminates any present controversy; dismissal as moot appropriate. | The court held the public-interest exception applies (issue of public importance, authoritative guidance desirable, and likely to recur) and reversed dismissal as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporation of Second Amendment against states)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to possess firearms for self-defense)
- In re Andrea F., 208 Ill. 2d 148 (mootness and actual controversy requirement)
- Messenger v. Edgar, 157 Ill. 2d 162 (declaratory relief requires an active controversy)
- In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994 (public-interest exception to mootness; criteria and precedent review)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2016 IL 118129 (explication of public-interest exception criteria)