People v. Clark, 6 N.E.3d 154

DeForest Clark was indicted in Kane County on two felony eavesdropping counts for secretly recording conversations with his attorney and with his attorney and a judge during court-related proceedings.
Clark moved to dismiss, arguing the eavesdropping statute lacked a mens rea requirement (substantive due process violation) and violated the First Amendment by criminalizing recordings of public officials and court proceedings.
The State defended the statute as a content-neutral protection of conversational privacy, asserting no recognized First Amendment right to secretly record court proceedings.
The trial court granted the motion, holding the statute unconstitutional on substantive due process and First Amendment grounds (as-applied and facial concerns).
The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed de novo and focused on whether section 14-2(a)(1)(A) is overbroad under the First Amendment; it affirmed the circuit court on that ground and declined to address other claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Clark)	Held
Whether 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1)(A) is facially overbroad under the First Amendment	The statute is a content-neutral privacy protection justified by an important governmental interest in preventing nonconsensual recordings; intermediate scrutiny should uphold it	The statute criminalizes a wide range of protected newsgathering and recording (including public and official conduct) and thus chills speech; many applications are unconstitutional	The Court held the statute is substantially overbroad and therefore unconstitutional under the First Amendment; judgment of circuit court affirmed
Whether the statute violates substantive due process by omitting a criminal-intent element	The statute reasonably protects conversational privacy and the legislature permissibly chose a broad prophylactic rule	The absence of a mens rea element criminalizes innocent conduct and violates due process	Not reached on the merits — Court resolved the case on First Amendment overbreadth and declined further analysis

People v. Beardsley, 115 Ill. 2d 47 (interpreting privacy expectation in eavesdropping context)
People v. Herrington, 163 Ill. 2d 507 (no eavesdropping when a party to the conversation records it)
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (facial challenge and overbreadth principles)
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (privacy interest and chilling effect on speech)
Board of Airport Comm’rs v. Jews For Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (overbreadth doctrine limits)
City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (overbreadth substantiality requirement)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (content-neutral regulation standard)
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (intermediate scrutiny for content-neutral regulations)
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (test for content-neutral regulation)
American Civil Liberties Union v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir.) (recording as protected expression and overbreadth analysis)