Illinois Supreme Court
Rowe v. Raoul
July 18, 2023223 N.E.3d 1010
Summary
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed a circuit court judgment invalidating the pretrial release provisions of Public Acts 101-652 and 102-1104, which abolished monetary bail in favor of a default of release on personal recognizance subject to conditions or, upon specified showings, pretrial detention. Rejecting the plaintiffs' facial constitutional challenges, the court held that the bail clause does not entrench monetary bail, that the crime victims' rights clause does not mandate it, and that abolishing it does not violate the separation of powers clause; the court bypassed the contested standing question in light of the State's acknowledgment of the public interest in merits adjudication. Justice O'Brien specially concurred, agreeing on the merits but concluding the defendants could not carry their burden on standing after conceding at oral argument that plaintiffs were injured. Justice Overstreet, joined by Justice Holder White, dissented on the ground that abolishing monetary bail nullifies crime victims' vested constitutional right to have their safety considered in fixing the amount of bail.
Holding
- Whether abolishing monetary bail violates the bail clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 9).. No. The bail clause does not include the term 'monetary' and did not cement the practice of monetary bail into the constitution; 'sufficient sureties' is not limited to monetary sureties, and the Act's detention procedures complement the clause's balance between pretrial release and the State's interests in appearance and public safety.
- Whether the pretrial release provisions violate the crime victims' rights clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 8.1(a)(9)).. No. The clause refers to the 'amount of bail,' not the amount of monetary bail; the Act expressly requires courts to consider threats to victims' safety and to give victims notice, thereby securing rather than contravening the clause's rights; reading the clause to mandate monetary bail would dilute its victim-focused purpose.
- Whether the pretrial release provisions violate the separation of powers clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. II, sec. 1).. No. The legislature did not encroach on judicial power by abolishing monetary bail; the trial court overread precedent recognizing courts' inherent authority to deny pretrial release, which decided only that narrow question, its broader commentary being obiter dicta.
- Whether the standing challenge precluded merits adjudication of the plaintiffs' claims.. The court did not resolve standing on the merits; observing that standing is typically a threshold determination but that 'this case is anything but typical,' and noting the State's acknowledgment that the public interest would be served by merits adjudication, the court turned directly to the constitutional claims.
Docket 129248
Cited authorities
- Sup. Ct. R. 384
- Sup. Ct. R. 302(a)
- Sup. Ct. R. 345
- 17 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 881
- 1963 Ill. Laws 2836