THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. ANTHONY NANCE, Appellee.
No. 86105
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Opinion filed January 21, 2000.
189 Ill. 2d 142
of her own, and was twice reminded not to leave the courtroom while the trial was in session. Too, in the many instances of unnecessary bickering between the attorneys during trial, counsel for defense and the State displayed equal degrees of immaturity and unprofessionalism.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. We remand the cause for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Richard A. Devine, State‘s Attorney, of Chicago (William L. Browers, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, and Renee Goldfarb, James Fitzgerald and Robert Robertson, Assistant State‘s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
Rita A. Fry, Public Defender,
CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON delivered the opinion of the court:
Anthony Nance was arrested by Chicago police and charged by complaint with violating
The validity of
In Nash, the same circuit judge who invalidated the statute in this case declared the law unconstitutional. When the State and the City appealed, the Nash defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the appeal was barred by the permanent injunction entered by the Landry court. We did not address that contention, however, because we found another, more fundamental obstacle to the State‘s prosecution: the charging instruments were fatally defective. In light of that disposition, we had no occasion to make our own, independent assessment of the law‘s constitutionality. Nash, 173 Ill. 2d at 432.
The case before us today parallels Nash in several key respects. Most significantly, it has revived the issue as to the effect of the permanent injunction entered by the federal court in Landry. Because the Landry injunction has become a recurrent source of controversy and because it appears that the State and the City of Chicago intend on continuing to enforce
In this case, the State contends that the Landry decision is void because it was overturned on appeal. The State is incorrect. As we pointed out in Nash, 173 Ill. 2d at 426, the United States Supreme Court did reverse the district court‘s rulings with respect to a separate statutory provision; however, that portion of the district court‘s judgment invalidating
The State argues, in the alternative, that it should not be bound by the Landry injunction because that decision is based on a view of the law which is no longer sound. The problem with the State‘s argument is that it overlooks basic principles governing injunctions. It is true that an injunction can be modified or dissolved when the court finds that the law has changed or that equity no longer justifies a continuance of the injunction. An injunction remains in full force and effect, however, until it has been vacated or modified by the court which granted it or until the order or decree awarding it has been set aside on appeal. Unless it has been overturned or modified by orderly processes of review, an injunction must be obeyed, even if it is erroneous. People ex rel. Illinois State Dental Society v. Norris, 79 Ill. App. 3d 890, 895-96 (1979).
The implications of these principles are clear. If the State and the City of Chicago believed that the Landry injunction was no longer proper or fair, it was incumbent on them to have it modified or dissolved. As we noted in Nash, 173 Ill. 2d at 426, they have never sought such relief, and the legislature has not amended the statute to cure the constitutional defects cited by the Landry court. The Landry court‘s order perpetually enjoining and restraining them from enforcing
The State and the City cannot justify their continued enforcement of
Finally, the State and the City cannot evade the Landry injunction by arguing that the state courts of Illinois are not bound by decisions of lower federal courts. As a general rule, the interpretation given to Illinois statutes by the lower federal courts is not conclusive on the courts of this state. Hanrahan v. Williams, 174 Ill. 2d 268, 277 (1996). That rule, however, is addressed to the situation where the federal court‘s decision is being invoked as precedent on a point of law. In the case before us, the Landry decision is not being cited for its legal analysis. Whether the federal court‘s analysis is correct is irrelevant. Whatever one thinks of the federal district court‘s reasoning, its decision is binding because it constitutes a valid judgment by a duly-constituted tribunal on the same question presented here and prohibits the same prosecuting officials
Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel a party is precluded from relitigating an issue decided in a prior proceeding. The doctrine is applicable where, as here, the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the suit in question, there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication, and the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication. Talarico v. Dunlap, 177 Ill. 2d 185, 191 (1997).
No possible claim can be made that application of the doctrine would be unfair in this case. In Landry, the State had the opportunity and incentive to litigate the matter fully (see Talarico, 177 Ill. 2d at 192) and did so. Having litigated and lost, it is not entitled to a “second bite of the apple.” There would be no question of this had the original proceeding taken place in the courts of Illinois. The result should not be different merely because the Landry judgment was entered by a court of the United States. Although states are free to allocate decisionmaking authority among their own tribunals as they please, they are not free to prefer their processes to those of the federal courts and to decline to respect federal judgments. In re Cook, 49 F.3d 263, 266 (7th Cir. 1995).
The same conclusion is mandated by principles of state and federal comity. Where a federal court has declared a state statute invalid and enjoined the state from enforcing it, courts of review in other jurisdictions have recognized that they are bound by the federal court‘s injunction (see State ex rel. Department of Human Resources, Adult & Family Services Division v. Northland Insurance Co., 139 Or. App. 92, 100, 911 P.2d 942, 947 (1996)) and that “until such time as the federal court‘s decision is reversed by the appropriate appellate court, the permanent injunction issued by the federal district court will be binding on the State *** and its instrumentalities.” Unborn Child Amendment Committee v. Ward, 318 Ark. 165, 167-68, 883 S.W.2d 817, 818 (1994).
In sum, the attempt by the State to relitigate the viability of
For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court of Cook County was correct in once again dismissing a complaint filed by the State under
Affirmed.
JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting:
Anthony Nance was charged in Cook County circuit court with violating
The majority holds that this court should enforce the district court‘s injunction based on state and federal comity. 189 Ill. 2d at 147-48. Comity, this court has noted, is not a constitutional command. Schoeberlein v. Purdue University, 129 Ill. 2d 372, 377 (1989). Comity, therefore, gives effect to the judicial decisions of another jurisdiction ” ‘not as a matter of obligation, but out of deference and respect.’ ” Rollins v. Ellwood, 141 Ill. 2d 244, 256 (1990), quoting Schoeberlein, 129 Ill. 2d at 378; see also 16 Am. Jur. 2d Conflict of Laws § 17 (1998) (describing comity as a rule of practice, convenience and expediency, not a rule of law). This court will not enforce law from another jurisdiction on the basis of comity if it is clearly contrary to Illinois public policy or the “general interest of the citizens of this State.” Schoeberlein, 129 Ill. 2d at 379.
Any discussion of whether the district court‘s decision in Landry is worthy of deference is sorely missing from the majority opinion. An examination of both federal and Illinois law reveals that the Landry court‘s injunction should not be enforced by this or any other Illinois state court.
Landry was a class action filed in federal district court in which the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of several provisions of the Illinois Criminal Code, including the mob action and intimidation statutes. Some of the plaintiffs in Landry faced criminal prosecutions in the circuit court of Cook County. The remainder of the plaintiffs, purporting to represent “the class of all negroes in the City of Chicago,” faced no criminal charges. The district court granted plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief, holding that
The defendants appealed, but they appealed only the portion of the district court‘s decision regarding the intimidation statute. Defendants did not appeal the district court‘s holding that
“[I]t appears from the allegations [in the complaint] that those who originally brought this suit made a search of state statutes and city ordinances with a view to picking out certain ones that they thought might possibly be used by the authorities as devices for bad-faith prosecutions against them. There is nothing contained in the allegations of the complaint from which one could infer that any one or more of the citizens who brought this suit is in any jeopardy of suffering irreparable injury if the State is left free to prosecute under the intimidation statute in the normal manner. *** [T]he normal course of state criminal prosecutions cannot be disrupted or blocked on the basis of charges which in the last analysis amount to nothing more than speculation about the future. The policy of a century and a half against interference by the federal courts with state law enforcement is not to be set aside on such flimsy allegations as those relied upon here.” Landry, 401 U.S. at 81, 27 L. Ed. 2d at 699-700, 91 S. Ct. at 760.
In a case decided the same day as Landry, the Court reemphasized that, except in “extraordinary circumstances,” even a defendant actually facing criminal prosecution in state court cannot not seek federal injunctive relief because the defendant can challenge the constitutionality of the statute at his trial in state court. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-45, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669, 675-76, 91 S. Ct. 746, 750-51 (1971). Granting injunctive relief under such circumstances, the Court concluded, would constitute an illegitimate interference with state criminal prosecutions. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-45, 27 L. Ed. 2d at 675-76, 91 S. Ct. at 750-51. In Younger, the Court held that this rule applies even in cases where the defendant alleges in federal court that the state criminal statute on its face violates the first amendment. Younger, 401 U.S. at 53, 27 L. Ed. 2d at 680-81, 91 S. Ct. at 755.
Although the Court noted in Landry that its holding was limited to the intimidation statute (Landry, 401 U.S. at 80, 27 L. Ed. 2d at 699, 91 S. Ct. at 760), an examination of the Court‘s analysis in Landry and Younger raises serious questions about the continued viability of the rationale underlying the district court‘s injunction enjoining the state from enforcing the mob action statute. Indeed, if the plaintiffs in Landry filed their constitutional challenge to the mob action statute in federal court today, it is highly likely that it would be summarily dismissed. This court should not enforce the injunction in Landry because it is highly questionable whether even the federal courts would enforce it.
The injunction in Landry is even more problematic because the district court‘s holding that the mob action statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad is based on an inaccurate construction of the mob action statute. The district court in Landry held that the phrase “unlawful act” in the mob action statute is “not limited to criminal illegality; it includes city regulatory ordinances, quasi-criminal ordinances, torts, or other civil wrongs.” Landry, 280 F. Supp. at 955. This court, however, has limited the scope of such phrases solely to violations of the Criminal Code. People v. Williams, 133 Ill. 2d 449, 454 (1990) (holding that the phrase “other than a lawful purpose” in child abduction statute applies only to violations of the criminal code and not to violations of administrative regulations or city ordinances).
The majority‘s analysis in this case is even more problematic because, despite its protestations to the contrary, the majority does indeed defer to the district court‘s constitutional analysis in Landry. The majority states:
“Moreover, the Landry decision was not confined to the law as applied to the particular conduct of the plaintiffs in that case. The court found the law invalid on its face because it was ‘impermissibly vague and overbroad’ in violation of the first amendment. Landry, 280 F. Supp. at 955. A statute which is facially invalid has no force and effect upon any person or entity regardless of the specific circumstances. In re Marriage of Lappe, 176 Ill. 2d 414, 439 (1997) (Freeman, J., dissenting, joined by McMorrow, J.). If the State‘s theory were correct and the Landry decision could only be invoked by the individual plaintiffs from that case, it would defeat the purpose behind overbreadth challenges, which is to protect the first amendment rights of other parties in situations not before the court. Desnick v. Department of Professional Regulation, 171 Ill. 2d 510, 520 (1996).” 189 Ill. 2d at 146.
The import of this language is that the mob action statute, since it has been declared facially unconstitutional by the federal district court, cannot be applied to anyone in this state. It bears repeating,
The majority‘s decision to defer to the federal district court‘s analysis that the mob action statute is unconstitutional is even more unfortunate because the mob action statute does not violate any provisions of either the federal or Illinois Constitution. As mentioned above, the district court‘s constitutional analysis is premised on an inaccurate construction of the mob action statute. Limiting the phrase “unlawful act” in the mob action statute to violations of the Criminal Code resolves the vagueness problem identified by the district court. The mob action statute sufficiently informs persons as to the forbidden conduct (assembling with the intent to violate the Illinois Criminal Code) and, therefore, is not vague. See City of Chicago v. Morales, 177 Ill. 2d 440, 453 (1997), aff‘d, 527 U.S. 41, 144 L. Ed. 2d 67, 119 S. Ct. 1849 (1999) (stating antiloitering laws not unconstitutionally vague when joined with a second specific intent element such as intent to solicit an unlawful act).
Nor is the mob action statute overbroad. The mob action statute does not have a sufficiently substantial impact on conduct protected by the first amendment to render it unconstitutional. See Morales, 527 U.S. at 52-53, 144 L. Ed. 2d at 78, 119 S. Ct. at 1857 (holding gang loitering ordinance which prohibited gang members from loitering with one another not overbroad). The mob ac- tion statute does not criminalize speech or any form of conduct that is intended to convey a message. The circuit court in this case concluded that the mob action statute criminalizes “the act of assembling to contemplate or consider ‘unlawful’ conduct.” The mob action statute, however, does no such thing. By its very terms the mob action statute criminalizes only assembly to do an unlawful act. The statute does not criminalize advocacy of ideas.
Defendant‘s argument that the mob action statute violates the Illinois Constitution also fails.
I would reverse the circuit court‘s order declaring the mob action statute unconstitutional and dismissing the complaint against defendant. I respectfully dissent.
JUSTICE MILLER joins in this dissent.