Illinois Supreme Court

Court Information
Justices: 7
Founded: 1818
Location: Springfield
Salary
Associates: $284,948[1]
Judicial Selection
Method: Partisan election
Term: 10 years
Active justices
Joy Cunningham, P. Scott Neville, Mary Kay O'Brien, David K. Overstreet, Elizabeth M. Rochford, Mary Jane Theis, Lisa Holder White

Founded in 1818, the Illinois Supreme Court is the state's highest court and has seven judgeships. The current chief of the court is Mary Jane Theis.

As of December 2022, five judges on the court were Democrats and two judges were Republicans.

The court meets in the Illinois Supreme Court Building in Springfield, Illinois on the second Monday in September, November, January, March, and May.[2]

In Illinois, state supreme court justices are elected in partisan elections. There are eight states that use this selection method. To read more about the partisan election of judges, click here.

## Contents

* 1 Jurisdiction
* 2 Justices
* 3 Judicial selection
* 3.1 Qualifications
* 3.2 Chief justice
* 3.3 Vacancies
* 4 Elections
* 4.1 2024
* 4.1.1 Candidates and results
* 4.1.1.1 1st District: Burke Vacancy
* 4.1.1.2 4th District: Garman Vacancy
* 4.2 2022
* 4.2.1 Candidates and results
* 4.2.1.1 2nd District: Thomas Vacancy
* 4.2.1.2 3rd District: Kilbride Vacancy
* 4.2.1.3 1st District: Theis' seat
* 4.3 2020
* 4.3.1 Candidates and results
* 4.3.1.1 1st District
* 4.3.1.2 5th District
* 4.3.2 Justices not on the ballot
* 4.4 2018
* 4.4.1 Candidates and results
* 4.4.1.1 1st Judicial District
* 4.5 2014
* 4.6 2012
* 4.7 2010
* 4.8 2008
* 5 Caseloads
* 6 Analysis
* 6.1 Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)
* 6.1.1 Summary of cases decided in 2020
* 6.2 Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)
* 6.3 Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)
* 7 Noteworthy cases
* 8 Noteworthy events
* 8.1 2021: State supreme court district maps redrawn for first time since 1964
* 8.1.1 Map images
* 8.1.2 Reactions
* 8.1.3 Legislative approval
* 9 Ethics
* 9.1 Removal of justices
* 10 Reform proposals
* 10.1 Reappointments in Cook County
* 11 History of the court
* 11.1 Constitution of 1848
* 11.2 Constitution of 1870
* 11.3 The Judicial Article of 1964
* 11.4 Constitution of 1970
* 12 Notable firsts
* 13 Courts in Illinois
* 14 Party control of Illinois state government
* 15 See also
* 16 External links
* 17 Footnotes

## Jurisdiction[edit]

The court has limited original jurisdiction, hears appeals of right in cases where the constitutionality of laws has been called into question, and has a docket of discretionary appeal from the Illinois Appellate Court. Along with the state legislature, the court sets rules for the state judiciary. The court has general administrative and supervisory authority over all courts in the state. This authority is exercised by the chief justice with the assistance of the Administrative Director and staff appointed by the supreme court. The supreme court hears appeals from lower courts and may exercise original jurisdiction in cases relating to revenue, mandamus, prohibition or habeas corpus. Its members also have the authority to appoint trial judges to the appellate court on a temporary basis.[3]

The supreme court has exclusive authority to hear legislative redistricting cases and cases and to determine the governor's ability to serve.[4]

The supreme court has sole authority to regulate the admission and discipline of lawyers in the state. It does so through the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the Illinois State Bar Association.[5]

## Justices[edit]

The table below lists the current judges of the Illinois Supreme Court, their political party, and when they assumed office.

Office | Name | Party | Date assumed office

|
|
|

Illinois Supreme Court 1st District | Joy Cunningham | Democratic  | December 1, 2022
Illinois Supreme Court 1st District | P. Scott Neville | Democratic  | June 15, 2018
Illinois Supreme Court 1st District | Mary Jane Theis | Democratic  | 2010
Illinois Supreme Court 2nd District | Elizabeth M. Rochford | Democratic  | December 5, 2022
Illinois Supreme Court 3rd District | Mary Kay O'Brien | Democratic  | December 5, 2022
Illinois Supreme Court 4th District | Lisa Holder White | Republican  | July 8, 2022
Illinois Supreme Court 5th District | David K. Overstreet | Republican  | December 7, 2020

## Judicial selection[edit]

See also: Judicial selection in Illinois

The seven justices of the Illinois Supreme Court are chosen by popular vote in partisan elections and serve 10-year terms, after which they must compete in uncontested, nonpartisan retention elections to remain on the court.[6]

Supreme court justices in Illinois are elected to represent specific districts. The seven justices are divided among five districts (three allocated to Cook County and the others divided evenly among the other four districts) and are voted into office by the residents of their respective regions.[6]

### Qualifications[edit]

To serve on the supreme court, a judge must be:

* a U.S. citizen;
* a district resident; and
* licensed to practice law in Illinois.[6]

### Chief justice[edit]

The chief justice of the supreme court is chosen by peer vote to serve a three-year term.[6]

### Vacancies[edit]

See also: How vacancies are filled in state supreme courts

In the event of a midterm vacancy, the Illinois Supreme Court is responsible for appointing an interim justice. If a justice is appointed more than 60 days before the next primary election, the justice must run in a partisan election in the next general or judicial election to remain on the court. The appointed justice's term will end on the first Monday in December after their election. If a justice is appointed less than 60 days before the next primary election, the justice will have to run in a partisan election to remain on the court in the second general election. The appointed justice's term will end on the first Monday in December after their election[6]

The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.

## Elections[edit]

See also: Illinois Supreme Court elections

### 2024[edit]

See also: Illinois Supreme Court elections, 2024

The terms of two Illinois Supreme Court justices expired on December 2, 2024. The two seats were up for partisan election on November 5, 2024. A primary was scheduled for March 19, 2024. The filing deadline was December 4, 2023.

#### Candidates and results[edit]

##### 1st District: Burke Vacancy[edit]

###### General election

##### General election for Illinois Supreme Court 1st District

Incumbent Joy Cunningham won election in the general election for Illinois Supreme Court 1st District on November 5, 2024.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Joy Cunningham (D) |

100.0

| 1,571,500

* * *

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 1,571,500

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

###### Democratic primary election

#####  Democratic primary for Illinois Supreme Court 1st District

Incumbent Joy Cunningham defeated Jesse G. Reyes in the Democratic primary for Illinois Supreme Court 1st District on March 19, 2024.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Joy Cunningham|

75.3

| 381,185

| Jesse G. Reyes|

24.7

| 125,029

* * *

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 506,214

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

##### 4th District: Garman Vacancy[edit]

###### General election

##### General election for Illinois Supreme Court 4th District

Incumbent Lisa Holder White won election in the general election for Illinois Supreme Court 4th District on November 5, 2024.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Lisa Holder White (R) |

100.0

| 732,695

* * *

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 732,695

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

###### Republican primary election

#####  Republican primary for Illinois Supreme Court 4th District

Incumbent Lisa Holder White advanced from the Republican primary for Illinois Supreme Court 4th District on March 19, 2024.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Lisa Holder White|

100.0

| 120,489

* * *

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 120,489

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

### 2022[edit]

See also: Illinois Supreme Court elections, 2022

#### Candidates and results[edit]

Partisan election

##### 2nd District: Thomas Vacancy[edit]

#### General election

##### General election for Illinois Supreme Court 2nd District

Elizabeth M. Rochford defeated Mark Curran in the general election for Illinois Supreme Court 2nd District on November 8, 2022.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Elizabeth M. Rochford (D) |

55.2

| 318,281

| Mark Curran (R) |

44.8

| 258,014

* * *

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 576,295

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

#### Democratic primary election

#####  Democratic primary for Illinois Supreme Court 2nd District

Elizabeth M. Rochford defeated Nancy Rotering and René Cruz in the Democratic primary for Illinois Supreme Court 2nd District on June 28, 2022.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Elizabeth M. Rochford |

44.4

| 42,955

| Nancy Rotering|

28.7

| 27,763

Submit photo

| René Cruz|

26.9

| 25,977

* * *

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 96,695

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

#### Republican primary election

#####  Republican primary for Illinois Supreme Court 2nd District

Mark Curran defeated Daniel Shanes, John A. Noverini, and Susan Hutchinson in the Republican primary for Illinois Supreme Court 2nd District on June 28, 2022.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Mark Curran|

29.5

| 31,628

Submit photo

| Daniel Shanes|

28.2

| 30,204

| John A. Noverini|

21.7

| 23,234

| Susan Hutchinson|

20.6

| 22,049

* * *

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 107,115

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

##### 3rd District: Kilbride Vacancy[edit]

#### General election

##### General election for Illinois Supreme Court 3rd District

Mary Kay O'Brien defeated incumbent Michael J. Burke in the general election for Illinois Supreme Court 3rd District on November 8, 2022.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Mary Kay O'Brien (D) |

51.1

| 349,164

| Michael J. Burke (R) |

48.9

| 333,669

* * *

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 682,833

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

#### Democratic primary election

#####  Democratic primary for Illinois Supreme Court 3rd District

Mary Kay O'Brien advanced from the Democratic primary for Illinois Supreme Court 3rd District on June 28, 2022.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Mary Kay O'Brien|

100.0

| 110,882

* * *

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 110,882

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

#### Republican primary election

#####  Republican primary for Illinois Supreme Court 3rd District

Incumbent Michael J. Burke advanced from the Republican primary for Illinois Supreme Court 3rd District on June 28, 2022.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Michael J. Burke|

100.0

| 122,598

* * *

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 122,598

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Retention election

##### 1st District: Theis' seat[edit]

##### Illinois Supreme Court 1st District, Mary Jane Theis retention

Mary Jane Theis was retained to the 1st District of the Illinois Supreme Court on November 8, 2022 with 78.3% of the vote.

Retention

Vote

Votes

|
|
|

| ✔ |

Yes

78.3

| 918,128
|  |

21.7

| 254,423

Total Votes

| 1,172,551

* * *

It has been certified. Source

|

### 2020[edit]

See also: Illinois Supreme Court elections, 2020

#### Candidates and results[edit]

Partisan election

##### 1st District[edit]

#### General election

##### General election for Illinois Supreme Court 1st District

Incumbent P. Scott Neville defeated Richard Mayers in the general election for Illinois Supreme Court 1st District on November 3, 2020.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| P. Scott Neville (D) |

100.0

| 1,765,329

Submit photo

| Richard Mayers (Independent) (Write-in) |

0.0

| 31

* * *

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 1,765,360

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

#### Democratic primary election

#####  Democratic primary for Illinois Supreme Court 1st District

The following candidates ran in the Democratic primary for Illinois Supreme Court 1st District on March 17, 2020.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| P. Scott Neville|

26.2

| 214,066

| Jesse G. Reyes|

20.3

| 165,344

| Sheldon Harris|

15.1

| 123,166

| Cynthia Cobbs |

12.7

| 103,497

| Margaret Stanton McBride|

12.4

| 101,475

| Daniel Epstein |

8.2

| 66,762

| Nathaniel R. Howse|

5.1

| 41,205
|  | Other/Write-in votes|

0.0

| 22

* * *

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 815,537

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

#### Withdrawn or disqualified candidates

* Clint Krislov (D)

##### 5th District[edit]

#### General election

##### Special general election for Illinois Supreme Court 5th District

David K. Overstreet defeated Judy Cates in the special general election for Illinois Supreme Court 5th District on November 3, 2020.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| David K. Overstreet (R) |

62.5

| 388,129

| Judy Cates (D) |

37.5

| 232,722

* * *

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 620,851

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

#### Democratic primary election

##### Special Democratic primary for Illinois Supreme Court 5th District

Judy Cates advanced from the special Democratic primary for Illinois Supreme Court 5th District on March 17, 2020.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| Judy Cates|

100.0

| 85,117

* * *

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 85,117

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

#### Republican primary election

##### Special Republican primary for Illinois Supreme Court 5th District

David K. Overstreet defeated John B. Barberis Jr. in the special Republican primary for Illinois Supreme Court 5th District on March 17, 2020.

Candidate

Votes

|
|
|

| David K. Overstreet|

76.5

| 77,438

| John B. Barberis Jr.|

23.5

| 23,777

* * *

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

| Total votes: 101,215

|
|

= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Retention election

##### Illinois Supreme Court 3rd District

Thomas Kilbride was not retained to the 3rd District of the Illinois Supreme Court on November 3, 2020 with 56.5% of the vote.

Retention

Vote

Votes

|
|
|

|  |

Yes

56.5

| 452,142
| ✖ |

43.5

| 347,812

Total Votes

| 799,954

* * *

It has been certified. Source

|

#### Justices not on the ballot[edit]

* Robert Thomas (R; 2nd District) [7][8]
* Lloyd Karmeier (R; 5th District) [9]

### 2018[edit]

See also: Illinois Supreme Court elections, 2018

#### Candidates and results[edit]

##### 1st Judicial District[edit]

General election candidates

* Anne M. Burke (Incumbent) (Democratic Party) ✔

* Election history, 2008-2014 (click to expand)

### 2014[edit]

RetentionJudge| Election Vote

|

KarmeierLloyd Karmeier| 60.8% A

### 2012[edit]

See also: Illinois judicial elections, 2012

In the 2012 race, incumbent Democrat Mary Jane Theis handily defeated her Republican opponent, James G. Riley. Theis, who was appointed in 2010, was favored to win.

Candidate| Incumbency| Party| Predecessor| Primary Vote| Election Vote

|
|
|
|
|

PucinskiAurelia Marie Pucinski | No| Democratic| Vacancy of Thomas Fitzgerald| 21%|
RileyJames G. Riley | No| Republican| Vacancy of Thomas Fitzgerald| | 25.3% A
CunninghamJoy Cunningham | No| Democratic| Vacancy of Thomas Fitzgerald| 23%|
TheisMary Jane Theis A| Yes| Democratic| Vacancy of Thomas Fitzgerald| 48%A| 74.7% A
GarmanRita Garman A| Yes| Republican| | |  A
FlanniganThomas W. Flannigan | No| Republican| Vacancy of Thomas Fitzgerald| 7%|

### 2010[edit]

See also: 2010 State Supreme Court elections

Justices Charles Freeman, Robert Thomas, and Thomas Kilbride all faced retention elections in 2010 and were re-elected to the court.

Illinois Supreme Court
2010 General election results

Candidates  | Votes  | Percent
Charles Freeman (D)  | n/a | 78%
Illinois Supreme Court
2010 General election results

Candidates  | Votes  | Percent
Robert Thomas (R)  | n/a | 81%
Illinois Supreme Court
2010 General election results

Candidates  | Votes  | Percent
Thomas Kilbride | n/a | 66%

### 2008[edit]

See also: State Supreme Court elections, 2008

Anne M. Burke was retained in the 2008 election.

Illinois Supreme Court
2008 General election results

Candidates  | Votes  | Percent
Anne M. Burke (D)  | n/a | n/a

## Caseloads[edit]

The table below details the number of cases filed with the court and the number of dispositions (decisions) the court reached in each year. As of September 2024, data more recent than 2020 was not available online.

Illinois Supreme Court caseload data

Year  | Filings  | Dispositions
2020 | 2,244 | 2,379
2019 | 1,942 | 2,075
2018 | 2,011 | 2,071
2017 | 2,208 | 2,320
2016 | 2,244 | 2,379
2015 | 2,402 | 2,443
2014 | 2,429 | 2,443
2013 | 2,671 | 2,627
2012 | 2,697 | 2,793
2011 | 2,906 | 3,104
2010 | 3,014 | 2,922
2009 | 2,729 | 2,897
2008 | 2,955 | 2,825
2007 | 2,836 | 2,962

## Analysis[edit]

### Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters

In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters, a study on how state supreme court justices decided the cases that came before them. Our goal was to determine which justices ruled together most often, which frequently dissented, and which courts featured the most unanimous or contentious decisions.

The study tracked the position taken by each state supreme court justice in every case they decided in 2020, then tallied the number of times the justices on the court ruled together. We identified the following types of justices:

* We considered two justices opinion partners if they frequently concurred or dissented together throughout the year.
* We considered justices a dissenting minority if they frequently opposed decisions together as a -1 minority.
* We considered a group of justices a determining majority if they frequently determined cases by a +1 majority throughout the year.
* We considered a justice a lone dissenter if he or she frequently dissented alone in cases throughout the year.

#### Summary of cases decided in 2020[edit]

* Number of justices: 7
* Number of cases: 63
* Percentage of cases with a unanimous ruling: 69.8%% (44)
* Justice most often writing the majority opinion: Justice Theis (11)
* Per curiam decisions: 2
* Concurring opinions: 7
* Justice with most concurring opinions: Justices A. Burke, Karmeier, and Kilbride (2)
* Dissenting opinions: 20
* Justice with most dissenting opinions: Justice Neville (8)

For the study's full set of findings in Illinois, click here.

### Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship

Last updated: June 15, 2020

In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.

The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation, based on a variety of factors. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on the political or ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. To arrive at confidence scores we analyzed each justice's past partisan activity by collecting data on campaign finance, past political positions, party registration history, as well as other factors. The five categories of Confidence Scores were:

* Strong Democrat
* Mild Democrat
* Indeterminate[10]
* Mild Republican
* Strong Republican

We used the Confidence Scores of each justice to develop a Court Balance Score, which attempted to show the balance among justices with Democratic, Republican, and Indeterminate Confidence Scores on a court. Courts with higher positive Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Republican Confidence Scores, while courts with lower negative Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Democratic Confidence Scores. Courts closest to zero either had justices with conflicting partisanship or justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores.[11]

Illinois had a Court Balance Score of -4, indicating Democratic control of the court. In total, the study found that there were 15 states with Democrat-controlled courts, 27 states with Republican-controlled courts, and eight states with Split courts. The map below shows the court balance score of each state.

### Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)[edit]

See also: Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores of state supreme court justices, 2012

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns." A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of Illinois was given a campaign finance score (CFscore), which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, Illinois received a score of -0.31. Based on the justices selected, Illinois was the 15th most liberal court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, or—in the absence of elections—the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.[12]

## Noteworthy cases[edit]

The following are noteworthy cases heard before the Illinois Supreme Court. For a full list of opinions published by the court, click here. Know of a case we should cover here? Let us know by emailing us.

• Colin Dew-Becker v. Andrew Wu (2020)| Click for summary→

|

In April 2016, Illinois residents Colin Dew-Becker and Andrew Wu competed in a fantasy sports contest hosted by the website FanDuel. They each paid a total of $109: a $100 wager and a $9 fee to the company. Wu defeated Dew-Becker, and three days later Dew-Becker invoked an 1819 law called The Loss Recovery Act in order to recover his bet. On April 16, 2020, the Illinois Supreme Court determined that the loser of a head-to-head contest on a daily fantasy sports website may not recover money lost to the winner of the contest under the Loss Recovery Act.[13]

Justice Anne M. Burke delivered the majority judgment of the court with opinion, with Justices Kilbride, Garman, Theis, and Neville concurring in the judgment and opinion. Justice Michael J. Burke did not take part in the decision. Justice Lloyd Karmeier dissented with opinion.

Justice Anne M. Burke wrote: "Because the outcomes of head-to-head DFS contests are predominately skill-based, we conclude that (Dew-Becker) was not engaged in 'gambling' with (Wu) as required... We determine here only that the DFS contest at issue in this case does not fall under the current legal definition of gambling." [13]

In his dissent, Justice Karmeier wrote: "Throughout the history of antigambling laws, courts have recognized the effort and ingenuity man has exerted to circumvent the law by disguising activities as legal or contests of skill although the intended appeal is to chance… The ingenuity exerted in head-to-head DFS contests duped the majority into believing it is a game of skill when truly it is a game of chance." [13]

• Court rules firearm restriction unconstitutional (2018)| Click for summary→

|

An Illinois statute prohibited the carrying of firearms within 1000 feet of a public park. A man who was charged with a violation of that provision challenged its constitutionality, arguing that the statute violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He argued that the provision would functionally prohibit members of the public from carrying firearms altogether. An Illinois circuit court agreed, and the state appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Lloyd Karmeier, the supreme court affirmed the circuit court's ruling. The court acknowledged that prior United States Supreme Court precedent allowed the state to prohibit firearms in specific places, like schools. However, the court ruled that this provision reached too far. It concluded that the provision "could create a chilling effect on the second amendment when an otherwise law-abiding individual may inadvertently violate the 1000-foot firearm-restricted zones by just turning a street corner." Therefore, the court ruled, the provision unconstitutionally infringed on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.[14]

• Unanimous decision against pension reform law (2015)| Click for summary→

|

On May 8, 2015, the court unanimously struck down a December 2013 law seeking to reform state pension policy in the case In re Pension Reform Litigation. Former Gov. Pat Quinn (D) and state legislators, seeking a solution to a substantial deficit for future public pension payments, agreed on Public Act 98-599. This act sought to eliminate an annual 3 percent cost-of-living adjustment for public pensions and delayed retirement for employees under 45 years old. Retired public employees and public employee unions filed a lawsuit against the state citing Article XIII, Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution, which states that "membership in any pension or retirement system of the state, any unit of local government or school district...shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired."[15]

Lloyd Karmeier, writing the opinion of the court, highlighted the problem of bypassing the constitution's requirements regarding pensions:

| “  | The General Assembly may not legislate on a subject withdrawn from its authority by the constitution (see Hunt v. Rosenbaum Grain Corp., 355 Ill. 504, 509 (1934); City of Chicago v. County of Cook, 370 Ill. 301, 306 (1938)), and it cannot rely on police powers to overcome this limitation. As we have already explained, there simply is no police power to disregard the express provisions of the constitution. It could not be otherwise, for if police powers could be invoked to nullify express constitutional rights and protections whenever the legislature (or other branches of government) felt that economic or other exigencies warranted, it is not merely pension benefits of public employees that would be in jeopardy. No rights or property would be safe from the State. Today it is nullification of the right to retirement benefits. Tomorrow it could be renunciation of the duty to repay State obligations. Eventually, investment capital could be seized. Under the State’s reasoning, the only limit on the police power would be the scope of the emergency. The legislature could do whatever it felt it needed to do under the circumstances. And more than that, through its funding decisions, it could create the very emergency conditions used to justify its suspension of the rights conferred and protected by the constitution. If financial markets were rational, this prospect would not buoy our economy, it would ruin it.[16] | ”

|
|

For more information on pension policy, visit Policypedia.
• Eavesdropping law struck by court (2014)| Click for summary→

|

In People v. Melongo, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the 1961 Illinois Eavesdropping Act on March 20, 2014, declaring that the law, which made it a felony to record a person's conversation without their consent, was too broad. The law made it a crime to record events such as an argument on the street or fans at a sports event. Chief Justice Rita Garman wrote:

| “  | Judged in terms of the legislative purpose of protecting conversational privacy, the statute's scope is simply too broad.[16] | ”

|
|

—Chief Justice Rita Garman, Illinois Supreme Court opinion[17]

The U.S. Supreme Court, in late 2012, had affirmed a ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked enforcement of the eavesdropping law and said that it likely violated the First Amendment. The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.[17]

• Illinois Supreme Court closes tax loophole for Chicago businesses (2013)| Click for summary→

|

See also: Courtroom Weekly: Kids and the courts

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled on November 21, 2013, that state law does not allow businesses to create “sales offices” in towns with lower tax rates in order to avoid higher local tax rates in Chicago.[18][19]

Starting in 2003, Hartney Fuel Oil Co. began renting an office and phone line in the small town of Mark, Illinois. This move enabled Hartney to claim Mark as the point of sale for fuel purchases.[19] Since local sales tax rates vary in Illinois, towns often compete with tax incentives to bring in business.[20] Putnam County, where the town of Mark is located, had no local sales tax at the time of the lawsuit. This made Mark’s tax rate the same as the state’s 6.25 percent. Chicago’s tax rate by comparison was 9.25 percent.[19] With this arrangement, Hartney did not pay sales taxes to the village of Forest View, Cook County, and the Regional Transportation Authority.

The dispute with the state began in 2008, when the Department of Revenue billed Hartney $23 million for tax, interest and penalty after conducting an audit of January 1, 2005, through June 30, 2007. The audit determined that the company’s operations were subject to the tax rates of the Chicago suburb Forest View rather than Mark. The state accused Hartney of benefitting from the Chicago-area business incentives while avoiding the high taxes by paying the cheaper rates downstate.[21] Hartney paid the assessment and in 2011 sued for a refund in Tenth Circuit Court.[20]

In court, the Department of Revenue argued that determining the location of taxation is based on "a totality of the circumstances."[22] Since Hartney maintained inventory, marketed, set pricing, and cultivated sales relationships in Forest View, the company should have to pay taxes to that locality.[18] In turn, Hartney argued that tax agents had pulled their analysis “out of thin air” and had ignored previous audits showing Hartney’s sales were in Mark.[21] Tenth Circuit Court Judge Scott A. Shore sided with Hartney and Mark in his decision.[20] In 2012, the Department of Revenue appealed the ruling in the Illinois Third District Appellate Court in Ottawa, where the justices upheld Shore’s ruling 2-1. The Department of Revenue then took the case to the Illinois Supreme Court for appeal.

On November 21, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court partially affirmed the lower court rulings. Chief Justice Rita Garman noted in her opinion that Hartney’s tax situation was debatable, but it was consistent with state law and policy in effect at that time.[21][19] The justices noted that the General Assembly did not intend for the legislation to function in that way, since the purpose of collecting taxes is to pay for government services provided to those who live or do business within the taxing venue.[18][22]

In light of this, the supreme court ordered the Department of Revenue to refund Hartney the $23 million as well as rewrite the regulations to close the loophole.[18] The court noted that tax collection, according to the legislation, is based on multiple factors rather than just the location of the purchase order.[19] The court did not specify what the tax policy should be, as Garman wrote, “these are arguments well suited for the General Assembly.”[22]

Both parties appeared to welcome the judgment. Mark Village President Frank Niewinski stated, “Everything appears to have gone in favor of the Village of Mark, Putnam County and Hartney Fuel Oil. We’re pleased with the decision to uphold Judge Shore’s ruling and the appellate court ruling”[21] The Department of Revenue also viewed the ruling as a win, stating, “The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision (Thursday) gets to the result that the Department of Revenue has been trying to achieve for years: It clarifies that sales taxes must be paid in the community where the bulk of the business activities occur and that the Department of Revenue complies with state law by allocating sales tax revenues to the communities housing core business functions."[21]

• People v. Aguilar (2013)| Click for summary→

|

In the case of The People of the State of Illinois v. Alberto Aguilar, the state supreme court held that Illinois' ban on carrying firearms outside of the home was unconstitutional.[23][24]

• Mandatory retirement law struck (2013)| Click for summary→

|

In 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a law that required judges in the state to retire at the age of 75. Former circuit judge William Maddux was the plaintiff. The court found that the law was unfair because it applied only to sitting judges; persons older than 75 who were not former judges could run for election to judgeships. The court stated:

| “  | We stress again that if age defines ability (and both the constitutional and legislative history indicate that it was believed that it does), either all those 75 years of age or older are unfit or they are not. No presumption of constitutionality could save legislation like this that so blatantly violates equal protection.[25][26][16] | ”

|
|

• Certification of Burris appointment (2009)| Click for summary→

|

This lawsuit was related to the temporary appointment of Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate.

A lawsuit sought to compel Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White to sign the certification papers of Burris to the U.S. Senate. The issue was contentious due to the fact that Burris had been appointed by Rod Blagojevich to fill President-elect Barack Obama's seat in the Senate. Blagojevich had previously been charged with soliciting bribes for the seat. When Burris asked White to sign his certification of appointment, White refused, pointing to the allegations of corruption surrounding the seat. Burris was refused admittance to the Senate due to the missing signature and filed suit to require White to sign the paperwork.[27]

On January 9, 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled that White was not required to sign the certification of appointment. In issuing the ruling, Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote:

| “  | We note ... that nothing in the published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the 17th Amendment must be signed and sealed by the state's secretary of state.[16] | ”

|
|

The Senate later decided to admit Burris.[28]

• Blagojevich suit (2008)| Click for summary→

|

In December of 2008, three citizens filed suit in the case of Bambenek et al v. Milorad R. Blagojevich, concerning the ability of Governor Rod Blagojevich to continue serving in office after his arrest on corruption charges. The court was asked to consider ruling Blagojevich unfit to serve pursuant to the "other disability" clause of the Illinois Constitution, Article V, Section 6(b). On December 17, 2008, the court denied, without comment, hearing this suit as well as an identical suit filed by Attorney General Lisa Madigan.[29]

The text of the brief can be viewed here.

## Noteworthy events[edit]

### 2021: State supreme court district maps redrawn for first time since 1964[edit]

See also: Redistricting in Illinois after the 2020 census

On May 21, 2021, state lawmakers released proposed maps for state supreme court districts, which were last redrawn in 1964. Illinois is divided into five supreme court districts. Cook County (home to Chicago) forms a single district, but it is allocated three seats on the seven-member court. Downstate Illinois is divided into four districts, each with one seat on the court.[30]

The state constitution allows state lawmakers to redraw supreme court districts at any time. However, according to The Chicago Tribune, "lawmakers have traditionally used boundaries for the circuit, appellate and Supreme Court laid out in a 1964 overhaul of the state's court system."[30]

##### Map images[edit]

An image of the proposed supreme court district map is embedded below.

* Click here for an interactive viewer of the proposed House supreme court district map.

Illinois Supreme Court – proposed map (May 25, 2021)

##### Reactions[edit]

Rep. Elizabeth Hernandez (D), chair of the House Redistricting Committee, said it was necessary to redraw the court's district maps to ensure more equal populations between districts: "This map is about equal representation in the state’s most important court. As we strive for all to be equal before the law, we must ensure we all have an equal voice in choosing those who uphold it."[30]

The state Republican Party opposed the redrawn the state supreme court map: "This is a brazen abuse of our judicial system and nothing more than political gamesmanship with what should be an independent court, free of corrupt influence."[31]

##### Legislative approval[edit]

On May 28, 2021, Illinois lawmakers approved a revised state supreme court district map. The House voted 71-45 in favor of the maps, with all Democrats present voting 'yea' and all Republicans present voting 'nay.' The Senate voted 40-18 in favor of the maps, also with all Democrats present voting 'yea' and all Republicans present voting 'nay.'[32]

## Ethics[edit]

The Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct sets forth ethical guidelines and principles for the conduct of judges and judicial candidates in Illinois. It consists of four canons:

* Canon 1: "A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities."
* Canon 2: "A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently."
* Canon 3: "A judge shall conduct the judge's personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office."
* Canon 4: "A judge or judicial candidate shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary."[33]

The full text of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct can be found here.

### Removal of justices[edit]

The Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board is responsible for filing any necessary complaints against a justice with the Illinois Courts Commission. After a hearing, the commission may take various disciplinary actions against the justice, which can include removal from the bench.

Justices may also be impeached by the state legislature. This requires a majority vote of the house of representatives and a two-thirds vote of the senate.[34]

## Reform proposals[edit]

In the years since the convention of 1970, there have been multiple attempts to reform the court, and specifically to change the method of judicial selection. Proponents have included the Illinois State Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association and the League of Women Voters of Illinois. None of those efforts were successful.[35]

### Reappointments in Cook County[edit]

Using its recall power, the supreme court was found to reinstating a number of Cook County Circuit Court judges to office, contrary to decisions made by voters at the polls. In 1993, the court promised to stop this practice. However, a review by the Chicago Tribune found that, since 2000, the supreme court had reappointed 18 judges to the Cook County Circuit Court who had been ousted by voters. David Morrison, deputy director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said that this practice, which has gone on for a long time, violates the will of the voters. In August of 2011, a court spokesman said that the justices decided to end the practice earlier that year.[36]

## History of the court[edit]

On December 3, 1818, President Monroe signed legislation to allow Illinois to enter the Union as a state. The Illinois Constitution provided for the judicial system in Article IV. The first supreme court had four justices who were to be appointed by the General Assembly. The court had appellate jurisdiction in all cases other than cases involving revenue, mandamus, habeas corpus and impeachment, in which it had original jurisdiction.[37]

The first supreme court justices served until 1824, at which point the General Assembly appointed new justices, who had life tenure during good behavior.

In 1841, after being legislated in and out of existence, all circuit courts were dissolved with legislation. To uphold the caseload, five new supreme court justices were appointed, creating a total of nine. This system remained until 1848 when the second Illinois Constitution was adopted.[37]

### Constitution of 1848[edit]

In 1848, the Illinois Constitution was amended, and Article V established a supreme court with only three justices. These justices were to be elected by popular vote for nine-year terms. The court convened only one time annually in each division. The justices were elected for nine-year terms by popular vote, and represented each of the three divisions of the state. The court's jurisdiction remained the same--original jurisdiction in cases of revenue, mandamus, habeas corpus, and impeachment, and appellate jurisdiction in all other cases.[37]

### Constitution of 1870[edit]

The Constitution of 1870 provided seven justices with seven districts for the supreme court. A quorum consisted of four justices and the agreement of at least four justices was necessary for a decision. The jurisdiction and term lengths remained the same.

The court was required to hold annual terms in each of the three divisions created by the Constitution of 1848. At least one of those terms had to be held in Chicago. This was changed in 1879, when legislation was passed to require the court to hold terms only in Springfield. Additionally, the law gave the court authority to make rules for the rest of the state's judicial system.[37]

### The Judicial Article of 1964[edit]

The Judicial Article of 1964 amended Article VI of the Constitution of 1870, particularly to address issues in Chicago's judicial system. It simplified the state's court structure into a supreme court, an appellate court and circuit courts. The supreme court was allotted seven justices. These justices were elected from five districts; three were elected from the First Judicial District, which included Cook County and the City of Chicago, and the other four districts each elected one judge. Term lengths were increased to ten years.

The supreme court was also given administrative authority over the state judicial system. This authority was tasked to a chief justice, who served a three-year term and was selected by his or her fellow justices.

The act also required that all justices in Illinois be citizens, licensed attorneys in the state, and a resident of the area from which he or she was elected.

Selected text from the Judicial Article of 1964:

SUPREME COURT

Section 4. Organization.

The Supreme Court shall consist of seven judges, three of whom shall be selected from the First Judicial District and one each from the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Judicial Districts. Four judges shall constitute a quorum and the concurrence of four shall be necessary to a decision. The judges of the Supreme Court shall select one of their number to serve as Chief Justice for a term of three years.

Section 5. Jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases relating to the revenue, mandamus, prohibition and habeas corpus, such original jurisdiction as may be necessary to the complete determination of any cause on review, and only appellate jurisdiction in all other cases.

Appeals from the final judgments of circuit courts shall lie directly to the Supreme Court as a matter of right only (a) in cases involving revenue, (b) in cases involving a question arising under the Constitution of the United States or of this State, (c) in cases of habeas corpus, and (d) by the defendant from sentence in capital cases. Subject to law hereafter enacted, the Supreme Court has authority to provide by rule for appeal in other cases from the Circuit Courts directly to the Supreme Court.

Appeals from the Appellate Court shall lie to the Supreme Court as a matter of right only (a) in cases in which a question under the Constitution of the United States or of this State arises for the first time in and as a result of the action of the Appellate Court, and (b) upon the certification by a division of the Appellate Court that a case decided by it involves a question of such importance that it should be decided by the Supreme Court. Subject to rules, appeals from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court in all other cases shall be by leave of the Supreme Court.[37]

### Constitution of 1970[edit]

The Article VI of the 1970 Constitution, as part of the most-recent revision to the state's constitution, defines how the judicial system operates today.

First, it decreased the supreme court's mandatory appellate jurisdiction so that only cases involving the death penalty are sent directly from a circuit court to the supreme court, bypassing the intermediate appellate court. Also, the article stated that automatic appeals, or appeals of constitutional right, from the appellate court to the supreme court were to be made in only two instances: 1) if a new constitutional question is presented as a result of an action of the appellate court or 2) if the appellate court itself determines that the case should be determined by the supreme court. This decreased the court's mandatory case load and allowed it more time for its administrative tasks.

The new article also set up the current system of partisan elections of judges through primaries. It also created the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, a disciplinary agency for the courts which files and prosecutes complaints before the Illinois Courts Commission. The Courts Commission was originally established by the Judicial Article of 1964, but its authority was slightly redefined in 1970. It is in charge of hearing complaints against judges and disciplining them as needed.[37]

Selected text from the Constitution of 1970:

THE CONSTITUTION OF 1970  ARTICLE VI

THE JUDICIARY

Section 1. Courts.

The judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court, an Appellate Court and Circuit Courts.

Section 2. Judicial Districts.

The State is divided into five Judicial Districts for the selection of Supreme and Appellate Court judges. The First Judicial District consists of Cook County. The remainder of the State shall be divided by law into four Judicial Districts of substantially equal population, each of which shall be compact and composed of contiguous counties.

Section 3. Supreme Court-Organization.

The Supreme Court shall consist of seven judges. Three shall be selected from the First Judicial District and one from each of the other Judicial Districts. Four Judges constitute a quorum and the concurrence of four is necessary for a decision. Supreme Court Judges shall select a Chief Justice from their number to serve for a term of three years.

Section 4. Supreme Court-Jurisdiction.

a. The Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases relating to revenue, mandamus, prohibition or habeas corpus and as may be necessary to the complete determination of any case on review.
b. Appeals from judgments of Circuit Courts imposing a sentence of death shall be directly to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. The Supreme Court shall provide by rule for direct appeal in other cases.
c. Appeals from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court are a matter of right if a question under the Constitution of the United States or of this State arises for the first time in and as a result of the action of the Appellate Court, or if a division of the Appellate Court certifies that a case decided by it involves a question of such importance that the case should be decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may provide by rule for appeals from the Appellate Court in other cases.

Section 10. Terms Of Office.

The terms of office of Supreme and Appellate Court Judges shall be ten years; of Circuit Judges, six years; and of Associate Judges, four years.

Section 11. Eligibility For Office.

No person shall be eligible to be a Judge or Associate Judge unless he is a United States citizen, a licensed attorney-at-law of this State, and a resident of the unit which selects him. No change in the boundaries of a unit shall affect the tenure in office of a Judge or Associate Judge incumbent at the time of such change.

Section 12. Election And Retention.

a. Supreme, Appellate and Circuit Judges shall be nominated at primary elections or by petition. Judges shall be elected at general or judicial elections as the General Assembly shall provide by law. A person eligible for the office of Judge may cause his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Judge at the primary and at the general or judicial elections by submitting petitions. The General Assembly shall prescribe by law the requirements for petitions.
b. The office of a Judge shall be vacant upon his death, resignation, retirement, removal, or upon the conclusion of his term without retention in office. Whenever an additional Appellate or Circuit Judge is authorized by law, the office shall be filled in the manner provided for filling a vacancy in that office.
c. A vacancy occurring in the office of Supreme, Appellate or Circuit Judge shall be filled as the General Assembly may provide by law. In the absence of a law, vacancies may be filled by appointment by the Supreme Court. A person appointed to fill a vacancy 60 or more days prior to the next primary election to nominate Judges shall serve until the vacancy is filled for a term at the next general or judicial election. A person appointed to fill a vacancy less than 60 days prior to the next primary election to nominate Judges shall serve until the vacancy is filled at the second general or judicial election following such appointment.
d. Not less than six months before the general election preceding the expiration of his term of office, a Supreme, Appellate or Circuit Judge who has been elected to that office may file in the office of the Secretary of State a declaration of candidacy to succeed himself. The Secretary of State, not less than 63 days before the election, shall certify the Judge's candidacy to the proper election officials. The names of Judges seeking retention shall be submitted to the electors, separately and without party designation, on the sole question whether each Judge shall be retained in office for another term. The retention elections shall be conducted at general elections in the appropriate Judicial District, for Supreme and Appellate Judges, and in the circuit for Circuit Judges. The affirmative vote of three-fifths of the electors voting on the question shall elect the Judge to the office for a term commencing on the first Monday in December following his election.
e. A law reducing the number of Appellate or Circuit Judges shall be without prejudice to the right of the Judges affected to seek retention in office. A reduction shall become effective when a vacancy occurs in the affected unit.

Section 13. Prohibited Activities.

a. The Supreme Court shall adopt rules of conduct for Judges and Associate Judges.
b. Judges and Associate Judges shall devote full time to judicial duties. They shall not practice law, hold a position of profit, hold office under the United States or this State or unit of local government or school district or in a political party. Service in the State militia or armed forces of the United States for periods of time permitted by rule of the Supreme Court shall not disqualify a person from serving as a Judge or Associate Judge.

Section 14. Judicial Salaries And Expenses--Fee Officers Eliminated.

Judges shall receive salaries provided by law which shall not be diminished to take effect during their terms of office. All salaries and such expenses as may be provided by law shall be paid by the State, except that Appellate, Circuit and Associate Judges shall receive such additional compensation from counties within their district or circuit as may be provided by law. There shall be no fee officers in the judicial system.

Section 15. Retirement--Discipline.

a. The General Assembly may provide by law for the retirement of Judges and Associate Judges at a prescribed age. Any retired Judge or Associate Judge, with his consent, may be assigned by the Supreme Court to judicial service for which he shall receive the applicable compensation in lieu of retirement benefits. A retired Associate Judge may be assigned only as an Associate Judge.
b. A Judicial Inquiry Board is created. The Supreme Court shall select two Circuit Judges as members and the Governor shall appoint four persons who are not lawyers and three lawyers as members of the Board. No more than two of the lawyers and two of the non-lawyers appointed by the Governor shall be members of the same political party. The terms of Board members shall be four years. A vacancy on the Board shall be filled for a full term in the manner the original appointment was made. No member may serve on the Board more than eight years.
c. The Board shall be convened permanently, with authority to conduct investigations, receive or initiate complaints concerning a Judge or Associate Judge, and file complaints with the Courts Commission. The Board shall not file a complaint unless five members believe that a reasonable basis exists (1) to charge the Judge or Associate Judge with willful misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, or other conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that brings the judicial office into dispute, or (2) to charge that the Judge or Associate Judge is physically or mentally unable to perform his duties. All proceedings of the Board shall be confidential except the filing of a complaint with the Courts Commission. The Board shall prosecute the complaint.
d. The Board shall adopt rules governing its procedures. It shall have subpoena power and authority to appoint and direct its staff. Members of the Board who are not Judges shall receive per diem compensation and necessary expenses; members who are Judges shall receive necessary expenses only. The General Assembly by law shall appropriate funds for the operation of the Board.
e. A Courts Commission is created consisting of one Supreme Court Judge selected by that Court, who shall be its chairman, two Appellate Court Judges selected by that Court, and Two Circuit Judges selected by the Supreme Court. The Commission shall be convened permanently to hear complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Board. The Commission shall have authority after notice and public hearing (1) to remove from office, suspend without pay, censure or reprimand a Judge or Associate Judge for willful misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, or other conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that brings the judicial office into disrepute, or (2) to suspend, with or without pay, or retire a Judge or Associate Judge who is physically or mentally unable to perform his duties.
f. The concurrence of three members of the Commission shall be necessary for a decision. The decision of the Commission shall be final.
g. The Commission shall adopt rules governing its procedures and shall have power to issue subpoenas. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the expenses of the Commission.

Section 16. Administration.

General administrative and supervisory authority over all courts is vested in the Supreme Court and shall be exercised by the Chief Justice in accordance with its rules. The Supreme Court shall appoint an administrative director and staff, who shall serve at its pleasure, to assist the Chief Justice in his duties. The Supreme Court may assign a Judge temporarily to any court and an Associate Judge to serve temporarily as an Associate Judge on any Circuit Court. The Supreme Court shall provide by rule for expeditious and inexpensive appeals.[37]

## Notable firsts[edit]

* Justice Mary Ann McMorrow was the first woman to join the court (1992) and its first female chief justice (2002-2006). As chief justice, she also held the distinction of being the first woman in Illinois to head one of the three branches of government.[38]
* The first African-American to join the court was Charles Freeman. He also served as chief justice from 1997 to 2000.[39]

## Courts in Illinois[edit]

See also: Courts in Illinois

In Illinois, there are three federal district courts, a state supreme court, an appellate court, and trial courts. These courts serve different purposes.

The image below depicts the flow of cases through Illinois' state court system. Cases typically originate in the trial courts and can be appealed to courts higher up in the system.

The structure of Illinois' state court system.

## Party control of Illinois state government[edit]

A state government trifecta is a term that describes single-party government, when one political party holds the governor's office and has majorities in both chambers of the legislature in a state government. A state supreme court plays a role in the checks and balances system of a state government.

Illinois has a Democratic trifecta. The Democratic Party controls the office of governor and both chambers of the state legislature.

## See also[edit]

Illinois | Judicial Selection | More Courts

|
|

Courts in Illinois Illinois Appellate Court Illinois Supreme Court |  Elections: 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 Gubernatorial appointments Judicial selection in Illinois |  Federal courts State courts Local courts

## External links[edit]

* Illinois Supreme Court

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ The salary of the chief justice may be higher than an associate justice.
2. ↑ Illinois Courts, "Supreme Court," accessed September 8, 2021
3. ↑ Illinois General Assembly, "Courts: (705 ILCS 25/) Appellate Court Act," accessed September 9, 2021
4. ↑ Illinois State Bar Association,"Illinois Court System," accessed June 14, 2024
5. ↑ Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission,"Overview of ARDC," accessed June 14, 2024
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 National Center for State Courts, "Methods of Judicial Selection," accessed September 8, 2021
7. ↑ Note: Thomas retired on February 29, 2020. The Illinois Supreme Court appointed appellate Justice Michael J. Burke to the court for a term starting on March 1, 2020, and expiring on December 5, 2022.
8. ↑ The State Journal-Register, "State Supreme Court Justice Thomas to retire," February 10, 2020
9. ↑ Note: Karmeier retired on December 6, 2020. His seat was up for regular election.
10. ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
11. ↑ The Court Balance Score is calculated by finding the average partisan Confidence Score of all justices on a state supreme court. For example, if a state has justices on the state supreme court with Confidence Scores of 4, -2, 2, 14, -2, 3, and 4, the Court Balance is the average of those scores: 3.3. Therefore, the Confidence Score on the court is Mild Republican. The use of positive and negative numbers in presenting both Confidence Scores and Court Balance Scores should not be understood to that either a Republican or Democratic score is positive or negative. The numerical values represent their distance from zero, not whether one score is better or worse than another.
12. ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Northwest Herald, "Fantasy sports betting a game of skill," April 16, 2020 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "dewBecker" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "dewBecker" defined multiple times with different content
14. ↑ Illinois Supreme Court, "People v. Chariez," February 1, 2018
15. ↑ State Journal-Register, "Illinois Supreme Court overturns state's landmark 2013 pension law," May 8, 2015
16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Reuters, "Illinois Supreme Court strikes down eavesdropping law as too broad," March 21, 2014
18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 The Chicago Tribune, "Court shuts down sales tax havens," November 28, 2013
19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 The Chicago Tribune, "Illinois Supreme Court tosses Department of Revenue's tax-collection rules," November 22, 2013
20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Mondaq, "Illinois Local Sales Tax Sourcing Uncertainty Is Over…Replaced By Chaos: Hartney Wins Tax Situs Suit, But Governing Regulations Are Invalidated," November 26 2013
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 Chicago Business, "Illinois Supreme Court moves toward closing big sales-tax loophole," November 21, 2013
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 The Supreme Court of Illinois, "Opinion," November 21, 2013
23. ↑ NRA-ILA, "Illinois Supreme Court Declares State's Ban on Carrying Firearms Unconstitutional," January 17, 2014
24. ↑ Illinois Courts, "People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116," September 12, 2013
25. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `abaretirement`
26. ↑ Supreme Court of Illinois (via ABA Journal), "Hon. William D. Maddux et al. v. Rod R. Blagojevich," June 18, 2009
27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 CNN, "Burris appointment valid, Illinois high court says," January 9, 2009
28. ↑ NPR, "Illinois Sen. Roland Burris Prepares Exit, Has No Regrets," November 1, 2010
29. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Court denies suit," December 17, 2008
30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 The Chicago Tribune, "Democrats want to redraw Illinois Supreme Court districts for first time in almost 60 years in effort to maintain majority," May 25, 2021
31. ↑ Chicago Sun-Times, "Dems draw new maps for 'equal representation' on state’s top court — but draw GOP’s ire for 'political gamesmanship,'" May 25, 2021
32. ↑ BillTrack50, "IL SB0642," accessed June 2, 2021
33. ↑ State of Illinois, "Code of Judicial Conduct," accessed July 17, 2023
34. ↑ American Judicature Society, "Removal of Judges," archived October 2, 2014
35. ↑ American Judicature Society: History of Efforts to Reform the Illinois Judiciary
36. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "State high court overrules voters on judge picks," August 26, 2011
37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 37.5 37.6 Illinois Courts, "The Third Branch - A Chronicle of the Illinois Supreme Court," accessed March 20, 2014
38. ↑ Illinois Courts, "Mary Ann G. McMorrow," accessed March 21, 2014
39. ↑ Illinois Courts, "Charles E. Freeman," accessed March 21, 2014

v • e

Illinois Supreme Court
Judicial selection in Illinois • 2024 elections • Courts in Illinois

|

Current judges|  Joy Cunningham, P. Scott Neville, Mary Kay O'Brien, David K. Overstreet, Elizabeth M. Rochford, Mary Jane Theis, Lisa Holder White
Former judges|  Anne M. Burke, Michael J. Burke, Robert L. Carter, Charles Freeman, Rita Garman, Lloyd Karmeier, Thomas Kilbride, Robert Thomas

v • e

Supreme Courts

Federal|

Supreme Court of the United States

State|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • D.C. • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oklahoma Criminal • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Texas Criminal • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Illinois courts

* * *

Federal courts:

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Central District of Illinois, Northern District of Illinois, Southern District of Illinois • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Central District of Illinois, Northern District of Illinois, Southern District of Illinois

State courts:

Illinois Supreme Court • Illinois Appellate Court • Illinois Circuit Court

State resources:

Courts in Illinois • Illinois judicial elections • Judicial selection in Illinois