{"id":91912,"date":"2023-04-16T14:18:28","date_gmt":"2023-04-16T19:18:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=91912"},"modified":"2023-04-16T14:18:28","modified_gmt":"2023-04-16T19:18:28","slug":"91912","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=91912","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Illinois Supreme Court justices refuse recusal in gun ban challenge despite funding from defendants<\/a>
\nGov. J.B. Pritzker, a defendant in the case, gave each of the 2 justices $1 million for their election campaigns.<\/p>\n

The Illinois Supreme Court has denied a motion to disqualify two justices from hearing a challenge to the state’s new gun ban over perceived conflicts of interest. The two justices also declined to recuse themselves.<\/p>\n

Before Elizabeth Rochford and Mary O\u2019Brien were elected to the Illinois Supreme Court in November 2022, Gov. J.B. Pritzker gave each of their campaign funds half a million dollars from both his campaign account and a revocable trust, totaling $1 million to each. The two justices also received six-figure donations out of a campaign fund controlled by Illinois House Speaker Emanual \u201cChris\u201d Welch,\u201d D-Hillside.<\/p>\n

Both Pritzker and Welch are top defendants in a Macon County challenge of Illinois\u2019 gun and magazine ban brought by state Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur. The county judge there issued a final judgment that the law is unconstitutional. The state appealed the case directly to the Illinois Supreme Court after a separate case was found by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to have a likelihood of success on the basis the law violates equal protections.<\/p>\n

Late last month, Caulkins\u2019 attorney filed a\u00a0motion<\/a>\u00a0for the two justices to recuse themselves, or for the Illinois Supreme Court to disqualify them from hearing the challenge. Attorney Jerry Stocks argued \u201cunreasonably large campaign contributions\u201d from Pritzker and Welch \u201cundermine public confidence\u201d in the judiciary.<\/p>\n

Asked in early March if the justices should recuse themselves because of the donations, Pritzker said that\u2019s \u201cridiculous.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd these are independent judges and they didn\u2019t go around and campaign on things that they thought would win my support for them,\u201d Pritzker said when asked by The Center Square.<\/p>\n

Late Friday, Rochford filed an\u00a0order<\/a>\u00a0denying the motion.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat contributors to my campaign committee might appear as counsel or parties before this court does not require my recusal from this case,\u201d Rochford said. \u201cOur supreme court rules specifically allow a judicial candidate\u2019s campaign committee to solicit and accept reasonable campaign contributions and public support from lawyers.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rochford further said previous precedent \u201ccautioned that courts must consider whether attacks on a judge\u2019s impartiality are \u2018simply subterfuge to circumvent anticipated adverse rulings.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPlaintiffs cast sinister aspersions that contributions to my campaign committee were made to influence the instant litigation,\u201d Rochford said. \u201cPlaintiffs provide no factual basis for those aspersions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rochford also denied making any pledge of support for gun control groups\u2019 efforts.<\/p>\n

\u201cDespite this broad claim, plaintiffs do not cite any instance in which I voiced such support. In fact, I have made no public statement committing or appearing to commit to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the instant proceeding that would require me to recuse or disqualify myself from this case,\u201d Rochford said. \u201cIn sum, plaintiffs do not suggest that I am biased or partial in this matter. Rather, plaintiffs have attempted to show bias based upon inference and supposition, to create the appearance of impropriety where none exists. I have carefully considered plaintiffs\u2019 motion, and for the reasons set forth above, I deny plaintiffs\u2019 motion to recuse myself from this case.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a separate\u00a0order<\/a> filed by O\u2019Brien, she too denied the motion for recusal.<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead any facts that would require disqualification under Rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, I am required under Rule 2.7 to hear and decide the instant appeal,\u201d O\u2019Brien said.<\/p>\n

A third order issued by Illinois Supreme Court filed late Friday says \u201cbecause disqualification in this Court is a decision that rests exclusively within the determination of the individual judge, appellees\u2019 request that the Court disqualify Justices Rochford and O\u2019Brien is denied.\u201d<\/p>\n

The final\u00a0order<\/a>\u00a0says Rochford and O\u2019Brien took no part.<\/p>\n

State Rep. Brad Halbrook, R-Shelbyville, had asked about the issue during a recent House hearing. Saturday, he told The Center Square the recusal and disqualification denials are disappointing.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe optics don\u2019t look very good,\u201d Halbrook said. \u201cThis just lessens the trust that people place in government and the judiciary.\u201d<\/p>\n

He still held out hope the case will get a fair hearing at the state\u2019s high court come mid-May, but is looking more at relief from the federal courts.<\/p>\n

\u201cHopefully the Illinois Supreme Court will utilize the constitution and hopefully the four-plus U.S. Supreme Court cases will rule the day at the federal level.\u201d<\/p>\n

The federal cases were heard Wednesday in East St. Louis. A ruling on a preliminary injunction is\u00a0pending<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Illinois Supreme Court justices refuse recusal in gun ban challenge despite funding from defendants Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a defendant in the case, gave each of the 2 justices $1 million for their election campaigns. The Illinois Supreme Court has denied a motion to disqualify two justices from hearing a challenge to the state’s new gun … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corruption","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91912","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=91912"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91912\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":91913,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91912\/revisions\/91913"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=91912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=91912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=91912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}