The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled on a case involving Senate Bill 328 (SB 328), affirming its constitutionality despite claims from a group of lawmakers that the bill was passed in violation of the Illinois Constitution. The court's decision impacts the legislative process and sets a precedent regarding the enrolled bill doctrine, which has been a point of contention in Illinois law.
The case, McCombie v. Welch (Docket No. 4-25-0971), involved 47 members of the Illinois General Assembly who filed a lawsuit against state officials, including Speaker of the House Emmanuel Welch and Senate President Don Harmon. The plaintiffs argued that the passage of SB 328 violated the three-readings rule of the Illinois Constitution, which requires that a bill be read by title on three different days in each house before it can be passed. This ruling is significant as it addresses the procedural integrity of legislative actions in Illinois.
The dispute began when the plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 17, 2025, after the General Assembly passed SB 328 on June 1, 2025. The lawmakers claimed that the final language of the bill was introduced just hours before the end of the legislative session through a floor amendment that completely replaced the bill's original content. Initially, SB 328 dealt with amendments to pleadings and e-filing but was changed to expand the jurisdiction of Illinois courts over foreign corporations in toxic tort litigation. The plaintiffs contended that this rapid alteration and passage of the bill constituted a violation of the three-readings rule.
The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the enrolled bill doctrine barred judicial review of the claim. The circuit court agreed with the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint. This led to the appeal to the Appellate Court, where the plaintiffs sought to reverse the dismissal and declare SB 328 unconstitutional.
In its ruling, the Appellate Court upheld the circuit court's decision, stating, "We agree with defendants’ first contention and find we cannot declare SB 328 unconstitutional, even if it were passed in violation of the three-readings rule." The court emphasized that it is bound by the enrolled bill doctrine, which holds that the certification by legislative leaders that procedural requirements have been met creates a presumption of compliance that is not subject to judicial review. The court noted, "We are constitutionally required to turn a blind eye to potential constitutional violations by a co-equal branch of government." This highlights the limitations of judicial oversight in legislative processes.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Knecht, with Justices DeArmond and Vancil concurring. The court's decision not only affirms the validity of SB 328 but also reinforces the enrolled bill doctrine, which has been a point of contention in Illinois law. The court acknowledged the concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding the legislative process but ultimately concluded that it could not intervene based on established legal precedents.
The impact of this ruling is significant for future legislative actions in Illinois. It reinforces the idea that the enrolled bill doctrine provides a strong shield against challenges to the procedural integrity of bills that have been certified by legislative leaders. This means that even if lawmakers believe that a bill was passed unconstitutionally, they may find it difficult to seek judicial intervention.
Moving forward, this ruling may affect how future legislation is crafted and passed in Illinois. Lawmakers may need to be more cautious about procedural compliance, especially regarding the three-readings rule, to avoid potential challenges. However, the ruling also suggests that the courts may be limited in their ability to address such challenges, potentially allowing for continued procedural shortcuts in the legislative process.
As for what’s next, it remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will seek further appeals or if there are any related cases pending that could challenge the enrolled bill doctrine. For now, the Appellate Court's decision stands, affirming the constitutionality of SB 328 and reinforcing the procedural protections afforded to legislative actions in Illinois.