enrolled bill doctrine in Illinois

2025Although this court has historically followed the enrolled-bill doctrine (Friends of the Parks, 203 Ill. 2d at 328-29 ), I continue to agree with Justice Holder White’s dissenting opinion in Caulkins v. Pritzker, 2023 IL 129453, ¶ 95 (Holder White, J., dissenting, joined by Overstreet, J.), and Justice Heiple’s dissent in People v. Dunigan, 165 Ill. 2d 235, 257-58 (1995) (Heiple, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part): “ ‘The interpretation of a constitutional provision depends, in the first instance, on the plain meaning of its language.

2025App. 3d 974, 992 (2006), Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191328 , ¶¶ 51-55, Accuracy Firearms, LLC v. Pritzker, 2023 IL App (5th) 230035, ¶¶ 36-46 , First Midwest Bank v. Rossi, 2023 IL App (4th) 220643, ¶¶ 220-41 , and Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 8 (noting the plaintiffs raised a three-readings rule claim in the circuit court)). ¶ 63 Because I continue to wholeheartedly agree with the dissenting opinion in Caulkins, I restate its compelling analysis here: “In Friends of the Parks, 203 Ill. 2d at 329 , this court noted it is ‘ever mindful of its duty to enforce the constitution of th

2025Although this court has historically followed the enrolled-bill doctrine (Friends of the Parks, 203 Ill. 2d at 328-29 ), I continue to agree with Justice Holder White’s dissenting opinion in Caulkins v. Pritzker, 2023 IL 129453, ¶ 95 (Holder White, J., dissenting, joined by Overstreet, J.), and Justice Heiple’s dissent in People v. Dunigan, 165 Ill. 2d 235, 257-58 (1995) (Heiple, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part): “ ‘The interpretation of a constitutional provision depends, in the first instance, on the plain meaning of its language.

2025In other words, it raises a rebuttable presumption that the requirements for passage have been met.’ Dunigan, 165 Ill. 2d at 258 (Heiple, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Association of Texas Professional Educators, 788 S.W.2d at 829 (stating ‘the present tendency favors giving the enrolled version only prima facie presumptive validity, and a majority of states recognize exceptions to the enrolled bill rule’).

2025In Geja’s Cafe, 153 Ill. 2d at 260 , this court declined the invitation to abandon the enrolled-bill doctrine, feeling ‘the doctrine of separation of powers is more compelling.’ However, this court deferred to the legislature ‘hesitantly’ and ‘reserve[d] the right to revisit this issue on another day to decide the continued propriety of ignoring this constitutional violation.’ Id. *** Accuracy Firearms [also] addressed the serious concerns raised by the plaintiffs there as to the legislature’s repeated failure to adhere to the requirements of article IV, section 8(d), and the three-readings ru

2025In Geja’s Cafe, 153 Ill. 2d at 260 , this court declined the invitation to abandon the enrolled-bill doctrine, feeling ‘the doctrine of separation of powers is more compelling.’ However, this court deferred to the legislature ‘hesitantly’ and ‘reserve[d] the right to revisit this issue on another day to decide the continued propriety of ignoring this constitutional violation.’ Id. *** Accuracy Firearms [also] addressed the serious concerns raised by the plaintiffs there as to the legislature’s repeated failure to adhere to the requirements of article IV, section 8(d), and the three-readings ru

2023See Yakich v. Aulds, 2019 IL 123667, ¶ 13 ; see also Cutinello v. Whitley, 161 Ill. 2d 409, 425 (1994) (“[T]he 1970 Constitutional Convention specifically contemplated the use of the enrolled bill doctrine to prevent the invalidation of legislation on technical or procedural grounds. [Citations.] The Convention determined that the legislature would police itself with respect to procedure.”). 5 ¶ 67 6.

2003While separation of powers concerns militate in favor of the enrolled-bill doctrine (see Cutinello, 161 Ill. 2d at 425 ), our responsibility to ensure obedience to the constitution remains an equally important concern.

2025The doctrine ‘is contrary to modern legal thinking, which does not favor conclusive presumptions that may produce results which do not accord with fact.’ Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby, 788 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex. 1990); D&W Auto Supply v. Department of Revenue, 602 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Ky. 1980) (stating the doctrine ‘frequently *** produces results which do not accord with facts or constitutional provisions’).

2025That ‘presumption may be overcome by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence establishing that constitutional requirements have not been met.’ D&W Auto Supply, 602 S.W.2d at 425 .” Id. ¶¶ 97-103. ¶ 64 Like the dissent in Caulkins, taking judicial notice of the history of the legislation on the General Assembly’s website, I would find the presumption, - 28 - created by the signatures of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, that the General Assembly abided by the three-readings requirement of the Illinois Constitution is clearly overcome in this case.

2025App. 3d 432, 447 (1998) (leaving to this court “the issue of whether the state legislature may disregard constitutional requirements and maintain the legality of its actions under the auspices of the enrolled bill doctrine”), New Heights Recovery & Power, LLC v. Bower, 347 Ill.

2023App. 3d 432, 447 (1998) (leaving to this court “the issue of whether the state legislature may disregard constitutional requirements and maintain the legality of its actions under the auspices of the enrolled bill doctrine”); New Heights Recovery & Power, LLC v. Bower, 347 Ill.

2025Although a lower court “is free to question the continued vitality of [a case], it lacks the authority to declare that precedent a dead letter.” Id. ¶ 22 The plaintiff’s first amended complaint acknowledged the enrolled-bill doctrine, as well as the fact that, in this case, the Act was certified pursuant to the doctrine but asserted that the enrolled-bill doctrine should be abandoned and/or abrogated.

2023See Yakich v. Aulds, 2019 IL 123667, ¶ 13 ; see also Cutinello v. Whitley, 161 Ill. 2d 409, 425 (1994) (“[T]he 1970 Constitutional Convention specifically contemplated the use of the enrolled bill doctrine to prevent the invalidation of legislation on technical or procedural grounds. [Citations.] The Convention determined that the legislature would police itself with respect to procedure.”). 5 ¶ 67 6.

2025App. 3d 974, 992 (2006), Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191328 , ¶¶ 51-55, Accuracy Firearms, LLC v. Pritzker, 2023 IL App (5th) 230035, ¶¶ 36-46 , First Midwest Bank v. Rossi, 2023 IL App (4th) 220643, ¶¶ 220-41 , and Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 8 (noting the plaintiffs raised a three-readings rule claim in the circuit court)). ¶ 63 Because I continue to wholeheartedly agree with the dissenting opinion in Caulkins, I restate its compelling analysis here: “In Friends of the Parks, 203 Ill. 2d at 329 , this court noted it is ‘ever mindful of its duty to enforce the constitution of th

2023App. 3d 974, 992 (2006); Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191328, ¶¶ 51-55 ; Accuracy Firearms, LLC v. Pritzker, 2023 IL App (5th) 230035, ¶¶ 36-46 ; First Midwest Bank v. Rossi, 2023 IL App (4th) 220643 , - 24 - ¶¶ 220-41; Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 8 (noting the plaintiffs raised a three- readings rule claim in the circuit court 1). ¶ 97 In Friends of the Parks, 203 Ill. 2d at 329 , this court noted it is “ever mindful of its duty to enforce the constitution of this state” and “urge[d] the legislature to follow the three-readings rule.” The court went on to state that, “[w]hile sep

2025App. 3d 974, 992 (2006), Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191328 , ¶¶ 51-55, Accuracy Firearms, LLC v. Pritzker, 2023 IL App (5th) 230035, ¶¶ 36-46 , First Midwest Bank v. Rossi, 2023 IL App (4th) 220643, ¶¶ 220-41 , and Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 8 (noting the plaintiffs raised a three-readings rule claim in the circuit court)). ¶ 63 Because I continue to wholeheartedly agree with the dissenting opinion in Caulkins, I restate its compelling analysis here: “In Friends of the Parks, 203 Ill. 2d at 329 , this court noted it is ‘ever mindful of its duty to enforce the constitution of th

2023App. 3d 974, 992 (2006); Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191328, ¶¶ 51-55 ; Accuracy Firearms, LLC v. Pritzker, 2023 IL App (5th) 230035, ¶¶ 36-46 ; First Midwest Bank v. Rossi, 2023 IL App (4th) 220643 , - 24 - ¶¶ 220-41; Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 8 (noting the plaintiffs raised a three- readings rule claim in the circuit court 1). ¶ 97 In Friends of the Parks, 203 Ill. 2d at 329 , this court noted it is “ever mindful of its duty to enforce the constitution of this state” and “urge[d] the legislature to follow the three-readings rule.” The court went on to state that, “[w]hile sep

2025I write separately to reiterate my dismay at the Legislature’s complete disregard for the three-readings rule, and to urge a realistic assessment of 17 the enrolled bill doctrine in light of the numerous records before our courts that have clearly rebutted the presumption accepted by the same. ¶ 47 I agree with Justice Holder White, as outlined in her dissent in Caulkins v. Pritzker, 2023 IL 129453 , joined by Justice Overstreet, that “ ‘the signatures of the officers are merely prima facie evidence that the General Assembly has abided by the requirements of the constitution.

2025Although this court has historically followed the enrolled-bill doctrine (Friends of the Parks, 203 Ill. 2d at 328-29 ), I continue to agree with Justice Holder White’s dissenting opinion in Caulkins v. Pritzker, 2023 IL 129453, ¶ 95 (Holder White, J., dissenting, joined by Overstreet, J.), and Justice Heiple’s dissent in People v. Dunigan, 165 Ill. 2d 235, 257-58 (1995) (Heiple, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part): “ ‘The interpretation of a constitutional provision depends, in the first instance, on the plain meaning of its language.

2025In other words, it raises a rebuttable presumption that the requirements for passage have been met.’ Dunigan, 165 Ill. 2d at 258 (Heiple, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Association of Texas Professional Educators, 788 S.W.2d at 829 (stating ‘the present tendency favors giving the enrolled version only prima facie presumptive validity, and a majority of states recognize exceptions to the enrolled bill rule’).

2023In other words, it raises a rebuttable presumption that the requirements for passage have been met.” Dunigan, 165 Ill. 2d at 28 (Heiple, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Association of Texas Professional Educators, 788 S.W.2d at 829 (stating “the present tendency favors giving the enrolled version only prima facie presumptive validity, and a majority of states recognize exceptions to the enrolled bill rule”).

1998Benjamin, 68 Ill. 2d at 272 ; see also Polich, 79 Ill. 2d at 211 .

1998Benjamin , 68 Ill. 2d at 272 ; see also Polich , 79 Ill. 2d at 211 .

1992As noted in Benjamin v. Devon Bank, (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 142, 145-46 , the Committee on the Legislature of the constitutional convention explained that the purpose of the enrolled bill doctrine is to avoid judicial nullification of statutes on purely procedural grounds: “ ‘Presently Illinois has the “journal entry” rule as distinguished from an “enrolled bill” rule.

1980In Benjamin v. Devon Bank (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 142 , the court recognized the validity of the enrolled-bill rule insofar as it related to procedural requirements for passage of legislation.

2025Allowing lawmakers to continue to ignore constitutional mandates under the enrolled-bill doctrine, knowing full well the constitutional requirements were not met, belittles the language of the oaths, ignores the need for transparency in government, and undermines the language of this state’s constitution.” Id. ¶¶ 42- 45. 19 ¶ 50 After this court’s decision in Accuracy I, our sister court addressed this exact same issue in an extremely pointed and critical opinion in First Midwest Bank v. Rossi, 2023 IL App (4th) 220643 .

2025App. 3d 974, 992 (2006), Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191328 , ¶¶ 51-55, Accuracy Firearms, LLC v. Pritzker, 2023 IL App (5th) 230035, ¶¶ 36-46 , First Midwest Bank v. Rossi, 2023 IL App (4th) 220643, ¶¶ 220-41 , and Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, ¶ 8 (noting the plaintiffs raised a three-readings rule claim in the circuit court)). ¶ 63 Because I continue to wholeheartedly agree with the dissenting opinion in Caulkins, I restate its compelling analysis here: “In Friends of the Parks, 203 Ill. 2d at 329 , this court noted it is ‘ever mindful of its duty to enforce the constitution of th

1995See Fuehrmeyer v. City of Chicago (1974), 57 Ill.2d 193 , 311 N.E.2d 116 (examination of journals, in violation of the enrolled-bill rule, not necessary because statute, on its face, clearly violated the single-subject requirement).

1995See Fuehrmeyer v. City of Chicago (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 193 (examination of journals, in violation of the enrolled-bill rule, not necessary because statute, on its face, clearly violated the single-subject requirement).

2025App. 3d 89, 100 (2004), McGinley v. Madigan, 366 Ill.

2023App. 3d 89, 100 (2004); McGinley v. Madigan, 366 Ill.

2025See People v. Griffin, 2024 IL 128587, ¶ 70 (noting that this court has repeatedly held that a party’s failure to argue a matter in its brief results in the forfeiture of the issue).

2023See, e.g., Gardner v. Mullins, 234 Ill. 2d 503 (2009) (allowing appeal, via Illinois Supreme Court Rule 315 (eff.