difficult challenge in Illinois

2026Because a statute is facially unconstitutional only if it is unconstitutional in every instance, a facial challenge is “the most difficult challenge to mount successfully.” Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 306 (2008).

2025As the Illinois Supreme Court stated: “In applying the rational basis test, we must identify the public interest that the statute was intended to protect, determine whether the statute bears a reasonable relationship to that interest, and verify whether the means chosen to protect that interest are reasonable. [Citation.] As long as there is a reasonably conceivable set of facts showing that the legislation is rational, it must be upheld. [Citation.] Whether the statute is wise or sets forth the best means to achieve the desired result are matters for the legislature, not the courts.” Hayashi

2012In re C.E., 161 Ill. 2d 200, 210-11 , 641 N.E.2d 345, 350 (1994) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). “[A] challenge to the facial validity of -7- a statute is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully ***.” People v. One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236, ¶ 20 , 960 N.E.2d 1071 . ¶ 37 While we must construe a statute so as to uphold its constitutionality if it is reasonably possible to do so (Irwin Industrial Tool Co., 238 Ill. 2d at 340 , 938 N.E.2d at 465 ), this rule of construction is not a license to rewrite legislation.

2011In support of its argument, the State relies upon United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), for the following principle: “A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.

2012In re C.E., 161 Ill. 2d 200, 210-11 , 641 N.E.2d 345, 350 (1994) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). “[A] challenge to the facial validity of -7- a statute is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully ***.” People v. One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236, ¶ 20 , 960 N.E.2d 1071 . ¶ 37 While we must construe a statute so as to uphold its constitutionality if it is reasonably possible to do so (Irwin Industrial Tool Co., 238 Ill. 2d at 340 , 938 N.E.2d at 465 ), this rule of construction is not a license to rewrite legislation.

2012In re C.E., 161 Ill. 2d 200, 210-11 , 641 N.E.2d 345, 350 (1994) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)). “[A] challenge to the facial validity of -7- a statute is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully ***.” People v. One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236, ¶ 20 , 960 N.E.2d 1071 . ¶ 37 While we must construe a statute so as to uphold its constitutionality if it is reasonably possible to do so (Irwin Industrial Tool Co., 238 Ill. 2d at 340 , 938 N.E.2d at 465 ), this rule of construction is not a license to rewrite legislation.

2025As the Illinois Supreme Court stated: “In applying the rational basis test, we must identify the public interest that the statute was intended to protect, determine whether the statute bears a reasonable relationship to that interest, and verify whether the means chosen to protect that interest are reasonable. [Citation.] As long as there is a reasonably conceivable set of facts showing that the legislation is rational, it must be upheld. [Citation.] Whether the statute is wise or sets forth the best means to achieve the desired result are matters for the legislature, not the courts.” Hayashi

2025As the Illinois Supreme Court stated: “In applying the rational basis test, we must identify the public interest that the statute was intended to protect, determine whether the statute bears a reasonable relationship to that interest, and verify whether the means chosen to protect that interest are reasonable. [Citation.] As long as there is a reasonably conceivable set of facts showing that the legislation is rational, it must be upheld. [Citation.] Whether the statute is wise or sets forth the best means to achieve the desired result are matters for the legislature, not the courts.” Hayashi

2025As the Illinois Supreme Court stated: “In applying the rational basis test, we must identify the public interest that the statute was intended to protect, determine whether the statute bears a reasonable relationship to that interest, and verify whether the means chosen to protect that interest are reasonable. [Citation.] As long as there is a reasonably conceivable set of facts showing that the legislation is rational, it must be upheld. [Citation.] Whether the statute is wise or sets forth the best means to achieve the desired result are matters for the legislature, not the courts.” Hayashi

2025As the Illinois Supreme Court stated: “In applying the rational basis test, we must identify the public interest that the statute was intended to protect, determine whether the statute bears a reasonable relationship to that interest, and verify whether the means chosen to protect that interest are reasonable. [Citation.] As long as there is a reasonably conceivable set of facts showing that the legislation is rational, it must be upheld. [Citation.] Whether the statute is wise or sets forth the best means to achieve the desired result are matters for the legislature, not the courts.” Hayashi

2022For the following reasons, we disagree. ¶ 16 At the outset, we note that a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, such as the one raised here by the petitioner, is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully because an enactment is “facially invalid only if no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid.” Oswald v. Hamer, 2018 IL 122203, ¶ 40 ; see also Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 305-06 (2008) (same); see also In re M.T., 221 Ill. 2d 517, 536 (2006) (“Successfully making a facial challenge to a statute's constitutionality is

2017Facial Challenge ¶ 15 As defendants point out “[a] facial challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative enactment is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully [citation], because an enactment is facially invalid only if no set of circumstances exists under which it would be valid.” Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 305-06 (2008); see also In re M.T., 221 Ill. 2d 517, 536 (2006) (“Successfully making a facial challenge to a statute’s constitutionality is extremely difficult, requiring a showing that the statute would be invalid under any imaginable set of circumst

2026Although this is a difficult standard for a defendant to meet, “it does not foreclose legitimate transfers when the balance of factors strongly favors litigation in another forum.” Id. at 521. ¶ 10 A plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference.

2023“Although this is a difficult standard for a defendant to meet, ‘it does not foreclose legitimate transfers when the balance of factors strongly favors litigation in another forum.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443 , quoting Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 521. ¶ 37 Petitioner begins with the first private factor and asserts that the trial court erred in finding the convenience of the parties did not favor Cook County.

2021Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745 ; Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008); Napleton, 229 Ill. - 12 - 2d at 305-06.

2021United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987); Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008); Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 305-06 (2008).

2011By contrast, in a facial challenge, the facts of his or her particular case do not affect our review. ¶ 17 Since a successful facial challenge will void the statute for all parties in all contexts, it is "the most difficult challenge to mount successfully." Napleton, 229 Ill.2d at 305 , 322 Ill.Dec. 548 , 891 N.E.2d 839 . "`Facial invalidation "is, manifestly, strong medicine" that "has been employed by the court sparingly and only as a last resort."'" Poo-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. The County of Cook, 232 Ill.2d 463, 473 , 328 Ill.Dec. 892 , 905 N.E.2d 781 (2009) (quoting National Endowment for

2011By contrast, in a facial challenge, the facts of his or her particular case do not affect our review. ¶ 17 Since a successful facial challenge will void the statute for all parties in all contexts, it is "the most difficult challenge to mount successfully." Napleton, 229 Ill.2d at 305 , 322 Ill.Dec. 548 , 891 N.E.2d 839 . "`Facial invalidation "is, manifestly, strong medicine" that "has been employed by the court sparingly and only as a last resort."'" Poo-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. The County of Cook, 232 Ill.2d 463, 473 , 328 Ill.Dec. 892 , 905 N.E.2d 781 (2009) (quoting National Endowment for

2011By contrast, in a facial challenge, the facts of his or her particular case do not affect our review. ¶ 17 Since a successful facial challenge will void the statute for all parties in all contexts, it is "the most difficult challenge to mount successfully." Napleton, 229 Ill.2d at 305 , 322 Ill.Dec. 548 , 891 N.E.2d 839 . "`Facial invalidation "is, manifestly, strong medicine" that "has been employed by the court sparingly and only as a last resort."'" Poo-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. The County of Cook, 232 Ill.2d 463, 473 , 328 Ill.Dec. 892 , 905 N.E.2d 781 (2009) (quoting National Endowment for

2011By contrast, in a facial challenge, the facts of his or her particular case do not affect our review. ¶ 17 Since a successful facial challenge will void the statute for all parties in all contexts, it is "the most difficult challenge to mount successfully." Napleton, 229 Ill.2d at 305 , 322 Ill.Dec. 548 , 891 N.E.2d 839 . "`Facial invalidation "is, manifestly, strong medicine" that "has been employed by the court sparingly and only as a last resort."'" Poo-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. The County of Cook, 232 Ill.2d 463, 473 , 328 Ill.Dec. 892 , 905 N.E.2d 781 (2009) (quoting National Endowment for

2010App. 3d 901 , 663 N.E.2d 138 (1996). "'This is clearly a very difficult standard to meet, limiting the power of the circuit court to reverse a jury verdict to extreme situations only.'" Jones v. 10 Chicago Osteopathic Hospital, 316 Ill.

2010App. 3d 901 , 663 N.E.2d 138 (1996). “ ‘This is clearly a very difficult standard to meet, limiting the power of the circuit court to reverse a jury verdict to extreme situations only.’ ” Jones v. Chicago Osteopathic Hospital, 316 Ill.

2011By contrast, in a facial challenge, the facts of his or her particular case do not affect our review. ¶ 17 Since a successful facial challenge will void the statute for all parties in all contexts, it is "the most difficult challenge to mount successfully." Napleton, 229 Ill.2d at 305 , 322 Ill.Dec. 548 , 891 N.E.2d 839 . "`Facial invalidation "is, manifestly, strong medicine" that "has been employed by the court sparingly and only as a last resort."'" Poo-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. The County of Cook, 232 Ill.2d 463, 473 , 328 Ill.Dec. 892 , 905 N.E.2d 781 (2009) (quoting National Endowment for

2011By contrast, in a facial challenge, the facts of his or her particular case do not affect our review. ¶ 17 Since a successful facial challenge will void the statute for all parties in all contexts, it is "the most difficult challenge to mount successfully." Napleton, 229 Ill.2d at 305 , 322 Ill.Dec. 548 , 891 N.E.2d 839 . "`Facial invalidation "is, manifestly, strong medicine" that "has been employed by the court sparingly and only as a last resort."'" Poo-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. The County of Cook, 232 Ill.2d 463, 473 , 328 Ill.Dec. 892 , 905 N.E.2d 781 (2009) (quoting National Endowment for

2014Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 305 (2008); People v. Greco, 204 Ill. 2d 400, 407 (2003).

2014Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 305 (2008); People v. Greco, 204 Ill. 2d 400, 407 (2003).

2022In a facial challenge, a court examines whether the statute or ordinance at issue contains “an inescapable flaw that renders the *** statute unconstitutional under every circumstance.” One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236, ¶ 58 . “[A] challenge to the facial validity of a statute is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully because an enactment is invalid on its face only if no set of circumstances exists under which it would be valid.” Id. ¶ 20.

2020“Moreover, a challenge to the facial validity of a statute is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully because an enactment is invalid on its face only if no set of circumstances -3- 2020 IL App (2d) 181048 exists under which it would be valid.” One 1998 GMC, 2011 IL 110236, ¶ 20 . “[T]he specific facts related to the challenging party are irrelevant.” Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 , ¶ 36. ¶ 10 “ ‘In conducting an equal protection analysis, we apply the same standards under both the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.’ ” People v. Dean, 363 Ill.

2025People v. Eubanks, 2019 IL 123525, ¶ 34 ; see Burns v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board of the Village of Elk Grove Village, 2020 IL 125714, ¶ 13 (“facial challenge to a statute is the most difficult challenge”).

2024This is because “there is no set of circumstances under which the statute would be valid.” People v. Bochenek, 2021 IL 125889, ¶ 10 (facial challenge poses “particularly heavy burden”); see Burns v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board of the Village of Elk Grove Village, 2020 IL 125714, ¶ 13 (“facial challenge to a statute is the most difficult challenge”). ¶ 21 As previously stated, at the first step, the plaintiff must show that “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers [the regulated] conduct” and thus “presumptively protects that conduct.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U

2008A facial challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative enactment is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully (In re C.E., 161 Ill. 2d 200, 210-11 (1994), quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 95 L.

2008A facial challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative enactment is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully (In re C.E., 161 Ill. 2d 200, 210-11 (1994), quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 , 95 L.

2019“A facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully because the challenger must establish that under no circumstances would the challenged act be valid.” Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd. v. Flores, 2013 IL 112673, ¶ 33 .

2014See Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd. v. Flores, 2013 IL 112673, ¶ 33 , 991 N.E.2d 745 (stating "[a] facial challenge to a legislative act is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully because the challenger must establish that under no circumstances would the challenged act be valid").

2024And to succeed on a facial challenge to a statute, the plaintiff must establish that there are “no set of circumstances under which the statute would be valid.” People v. Bochenek, 2021 IL 125889, ¶ 10 (facial challenge poses “particularly heavy burden”); see Burns v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board of the Village of Elk Grove Village, 2020 IL 125714, ¶ 13 (“facial challenge to a statute is the most difficult challenge”). ¶ 14 The plaintiff argues that the second amendment presumptively protects an individual’s right to possess all instruments that constitute bearable arms, which includes s

2024This is because “there is no set of circumstances under which the statute would be valid.” People v. Bochenek, 2021 IL 125889, ¶ 10 (facial challenge poses “particularly heavy burden”); see Burns v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board of the Village of Elk Grove Village, 2020 IL 125714, ¶ 13 (“facial challenge to a statute is the most difficult challenge”). ¶ 21 As previously stated, at the first step, the plaintiff must show that “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers [the regulated] conduct” and thus “presumptively protects that conduct.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U

2023“Although this is a difficult standard for a defendant to meet, ‘it does not foreclose legitimate transfers when the balance of factors strongly favors litigation in another forum.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443 , quoting Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 521. ¶ 37 Petitioner begins with the first private factor and asserts that the trial court erred in finding the convenience of the parties did not favor Cook County.

2021This is a difficult standard 6 to satisfy, but the standard “ ‘does not foreclose legitimate transfers when the balance of factors strongly favor[] litigation in another forum.’ ” Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443 (Emphasis in original.) (quoting Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 521). ¶ 19 A case involving forum non conveniens is “unique and must be considered on its own facts.” Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 21 .

2022See Hollins, 2012 IL 112754, ¶ 13 ; see also People v. Kitch, 239 Ill. 2d 452, 466 (2011). ¶ 64 Because a facial challenge to a statute voids the statute for all parties in all contexts it is “the most difficult challenge to mount successfully.” Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 18 No. 1-19-1391 296, 305 (2008).

2015Kitch, 239 Ill. 2d at 466 . 6 1-14-2421 A statute's invalidity in one set of circumstances does not suffice to prove its facial invalidity.

2020Pedrick, 37 Ill. 2d at 510 , 229 N.E.2d at 513-14 . ¶ 47 This is a very difficult standard for the moving party to meet, and a trial court should grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict only in extreme situations.

2020Pedrick, 37 Ill. 2d at 510 , 229 N.E.2d at 513-14 . ¶ 47 This is a very difficult standard for the moving party to meet, and a trial court should grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict only in extreme situations.