The Illinois Supreme Court announced Tuesday it has decided to reverse a decision from a Chicago-area judge surrounding the controversial "SAFE-T Act," marking a pivotal moment for the legislation, which would eliminate the use of cash bail in the state.
The court stated in its 5-2 ruling that determining the constitutionality of the Pretrial Fairness Act "is not an endeavor that we take lightly."
"The Illinois Constitution of 1970 does not mandate that monetary bail is the only means to ensure criminal defendants appear for trials or the only means to protect the public," the court concluded. "Our constitution creates a balance between the individual rights of defendants and the individual rights of crime victims. The Act’s pretrial release provisions set forth procedures commensurate with that balance. For the reasons that we have stated, we reverse the circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs."
As part of the court's decision, the Supreme Court's hold on the elimination of cash bail in Illinois ends 60 days following the ruling, or on Sept. 18. On that date, circuit courts in the state are expected to begin operating in accordance with the SAFE-T Act provisions.
The elimination of cash bail was set to take effect Jan. 1, but has been on hold as the Supreme Court heard an appeal filed by Attorney General Kwame Raoul's office following an earlier ruling from a Kankakee County judge, who deemed it unconstitutional.
The court was expected to decide whether the law as written violated the Separation of Powers Clause and the Victims Rights Act. It was also tasked with determining if it constituted an unconstitutional amendment of Article 1, Section 9 in the state, which says “all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties.”
Local
"The court’s decision today holds – as my office has consistently advocated – that the General Assembly had the authority to eliminate cash bail and replace it with a system in which people are detained pending trial only if they pose a threat to the public or are a flight risk," Raoul said in a statement. "And it rejects the plaintiffs’ argument that courts must retain the authority to set cash bail free of legislative regulation – an argument that would have called into question decades of criminal justice reforms in our state."
Supporters of the bill, which was pushed forth by Illinois Democrats, say the elimination of cash bail is a step towards fairness in an unbalanced system. Opponents, however say the elimination of cash bail neglects victims of crime.
Feeling out of the loop? We'll catch you up on the Chicago news you need to know. Sign up for the weekly Chicago Catch-Up newsletter here.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Ann Theis delivered the court's opinion.
Joining Theis in her opinion were Justices P. Scott Neville Jr., Joy V. Cunningham and Elizabeth M. Rochford. Justice Mary K. O'Brien specially concurred with her own opinion.
Justice David K. Overstreet dissented, arguing that the law violates the constitution's Crime Victims Bill of Rights, which voters added in 2014. He said it gives victims the right “to have their safety and the safety of their family, considered in denying or fixing the amount of bail.” Changing that requires voter approval, not just legislative fiat.
Justice Lisa Holder White joined Overstreet in his dissent.
The court first heard arguments in March in connection to the case, which came after Kankakee County Circuit Judge Thomas Cunnington held that the pretrial release provisions -- otherwise known as the elimination of cash bail -- in the SAFE-T Act violated the Separation of Powers Clause, the Victim Rights Act, and unconstitutionally amended Article I, Section 9 of Illinois' constitution, which codified cash bail in the state.
Cunnington ruled that since cash bail is specifically mentioned in the state constitution, it would be needed to put before voters and would therefore require an amendment to remove.
Outside of the elimination of cash bail, other portions of the SAFE-T Act, including new requirements for body cameras and other police reforms, were allowed to stand.
That ruling was made in response to a class-action lawsuit from several jurisdictions in the state.
Cunnington was swayed by the plaintiffs' argument that the state constitution provides for bail in stating, “All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties,” while Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul's staff contended that the statement merely assures defendants that there's a way out pending trial.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker had said he was confident the act will be found to be constitutional by the justices.
“I’m pleased that the Illinois Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the SAFE-T Act and the elimination of cash bail," Pritzker said in a statement. "We can now move forward with historic reform to ensure pre-trial detainment is determined by the danger an individual poses to the community instead of by their ability to pay their way out of jail. My thanks to Attorney General Raoul’s office and the many people who worked tirelessly over the last months to defend these important reforms. I look forward to continuing to work with the General Assembly and our many other partners as we transition to a more equitable and just Illinois.”
What is the SAFE-T Act?
Emerging after the Minneapolis police beating death of George Floyd in May 2020, the SAFE-T Act sets rigorous new training standards for law enforcement, spells out rules for police use of force in immobilizing troublesome suspects, requires body cameras on all police by 2025 and more.
Authored by the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus, the act was approved by the Illinois General Assembly last year, bringing "significant changes" to things like police training policies, police accountability, transparency in law enforcement and the rights of detainees and prisoners, according to Sen. Elgie R. Sims, Jr., who sponsored the bill.
Among the changes it was set to bring were the elimination of monetary bail, a requirement that all police officers wear body cameras by 2025, a ban on all police chokeholds, new guidelines for "decertification" of police officers, and an end to suspended licenses for failure to pay, among several other things. It also bans police departments from purchasing military equipment like .50 caliber rifles and tanks, increases protection for whistleblowers, and adds to rights for detainees to make phone calls and access their personal contacts before police questioning.
Detainees, prisoners and all those who interact with police officers would have the expectation of prompt medical care while in custody, with special accommodations made for pregnant women. Charges of resisting arrest must cite a justification for the original arrest that was allegedly resisted against under the measure, as well.
The bill was amended prior to Jan. 1, when it was set to take effect, however.
The amendment focused largely on clarifying language on several fronts, including whether defendants detained prior to Jan. 1 would be released once the legislation goes into effect, and making clear which crimes would qualify for pretrial detention.
For a full list of what's included in the bill, click here.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
