Rowe v. Raoul
2023 IL 129248
| Ill. | 2023Background
- In 2021–2022 the Illinois General Assembly enacted Public Act 101-652 (the SAFE‑T Act) and Public Act 102-1104 (Follow‑Up Act), effective Jan 1, 2023, which abolished monetary bail and established a default of pretrial release on personal recognizance with enumerated exceptions permitting detention.
- Plaintiffs (Kankakee County State’s Attorney James Rowe and Sheriff Michael Downey, later joined by other prosecutors and sheriffs) sued in state court challenging the pretrial release provisions as unconstitutional under the bail clause (Ill. Const. art. I, § 9), the crime victims’ rights clause (art. I, § 8.1(a)(9)), and the separation of powers clause (art. II, § 1); trial court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on those counts.
- The trial court reasoned the Acts eradicated monetary bail, thereby violating (1) the constitutional right to be bailable by “sufficient sureties,” (2) victims’ constitutional right to have safety considered in “fixing the amount of bail,” and (3) judicial authority over bail/detention. The circuit court therefore invalidated those provisions.
- Defendants (Attorney General, Governor, legislative leaders) appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court; this Court stayed the Acts pending appeal and consolidated related suits. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and upheld the Acts’ pretrial provisions as constitutional. Justice O’Brien concurred specially on standing; Justices Overstreet and Holder White dissented.
- The majority held (1) the constitutional text does not fix monetary bail as the only permissible security, (2) the Acts preserve mechanisms to consider victims’ safety and permit detention in enumerated cases, and (3) the legislature has long regulated bail so reform does not violate separation of powers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | State’s attorneys/sheriffs have injury and statutory/constitutional authority to challenge the Acts | Defendants argued plaintiffs lacked standing to raise some constitutional claims (esp. victims’ clause) | Majority declined to resolve standing as dispositive and proceeded to merits; Justice O’Brien: defendants failed to carry burden to prove lack of standing; dissent: plaintiffs have standing as public officers and under statutes. |
| Bail clause (art. I, § 9) | Abolishing monetary bail means defendants are no longer "bailable by sufficient sureties" and therefore violates constitutional bail right | Constitution’s “sufficient sureties” is not limited to money; historical meaning and legislature may reform pretrial release; Acts include detention exceptions | Court held Acts constitutional: "sufficient sureties" not confined to monetary bail; Acts’ detention exceptions and statutory scheme satisfy constitutional balance. |
| Crime victims’ rights clause (art. I, § 8.1(a)(9)) | Removing monetary bail nullifies victims’ right to have safety considered when "fixing the amount of bail" | "Amount" need not mean money; Acts explicitly require courts to consider victims’ safety and provide notice and procedures | Court held Acts constitutional: "amount" not restricted to monetary measure; Acts mandate consideration of victims’ safety and comply with clause. |
| Separation of powers (art. II, § 1) | Legislature usurped judicial authority over bail/detention by abolishing monetary bail | Legislature may regulate bail and limit judicial discretion; courts retain inherent authority to deny release where appropriate | Court held Acts constitutional: long history of legislative regulation of pretrial release; Hemingway and administrative authority do not bar legislative reform. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Hemingway v. Elrod, 60 Ill. 2d 74 (1975) (discusses courts’ inherent authority to deny or revoke bail to preserve orderly proceedings)
- People ex rel. Gendron v. Ingram, 34 Ill. 2d 623 (1966) (state’s interest in assuring defendant’s appearance and public safety in bail context)
- Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1971) (historical context for Illinois’ 10% bail deposit practice)
- Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (1997) (separation of powers principles and limits on legislative encroachment)
- Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217 (2010) (presumption of constitutionality and deference to legislative policy)
- People v. Richardson, 196 Ill. 2d 225 (2001) (explaining purpose and scope of crime victims’ rights clause)
- Carmichael v. Laborers’ & Retirement Bd. Emps.’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 2018 IL 122793 (2018) (interpretation of constitutional text in light of contemporaneous statutory practice and voters’ intent)
- Holland v. Rosen, 895 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2018) (example of another jurisdiction’s pretrial reform and related constitutional amendment)