Caulkins v. Pritzker
2023 IL 129453 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that creates classifications between different groups of people does not violate the equal protection or special legislation clauses of the Illinois Constitution if the complaining party is not 'similarly situated' to the exempt groups in all relevant respects concerning the purpose of the legislation.
Facts:
- Illinois enacted the Protect Illinois Communities Act (the Act), which restricts the sale, purchase, manufacture, and possession of certain firearms defined as 'assault weapons' and large capacity magazines (LCMs), effective January 10, 2023.
- The Act contains exemptions for specific groups, including active and retired law enforcement, corrections officials, military personnel, and licensed private security guards (trained professionals).
- The Act includes a 'grandfather' provision, permitting individuals who lawfully possessed the restricted items before the Act's effective date to continue to possess them, provided they submit an endorsement affidavit to the Illinois State Police.
- Dan Caulkins, Perry Lewin, Law-Abiding Gun Owners of Macon County, and Decatur Jewelry (plaintiffs) are Illinois citizens, an association, and a business who either possess or wish to purchase, sell, or manufacture the firearms and LCMs restricted by the Act.
- Plaintiffs possess valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) cards but do not fall into the specific exempt categories of 'trained professionals' created by the Act.
- Plaintiff Decatur Jewelry is a licensed pawn broker which holds certain restricted weapons as security and alleges the Act criminalizes the return of those weapons to their owners.
Procedural Posture:
- Dan Caulkins and other plaintiffs filed a multi-count complaint in the Circuit Court of Macon County against Governor Pritzker and other state officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their claims that the Protect Illinois Communities Act violated the equal protection and special legislation clauses of the Illinois Constitution.
- The Circuit Court of Macon County granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the equal protection and special legislation claims, finding those portions of the Act facially unconstitutional.
- The circuit court entered judgment for the defendants on the remaining counts, including a claim that the Act violated the Illinois Constitution's three-readings requirement.
- Defendants, the State of Illinois officials, filed a notice of direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the exemptions in the Protect Illinois Communities Act for trained professionals and grandfathered individuals violate the equal protection and special legislation clauses of the Illinois Constitution by treating law-abiding gun owners differently?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rochford
No. The exemptions in the Protect Illinois Communities Act do not violate the equal protection and special legislation clauses because the plaintiffs are not similarly situated to the exempt groups. The threshold question for an equal protection claim is whether the challenging party is similarly situated to the group receiving different treatment. Here, the plaintiffs, as general FOID card holders, are not similarly situated to the 'trained professionals' class because those individuals undergo specialized firearms training and have public safety duties that are directly relevant to the Act's purpose. Likewise, plaintiffs who do not own the restricted items are not similarly situated to 'grandfathered individuals,' who have a reliance interest based on prior lawful acquisition. For plaintiffs who already own such items, they are treated identically to the grandfathered class. Because plaintiffs fail to meet this threshold requirement, their claims fail.
Dissenting - Justice Holder White
The court should not have reached the merits of the equal protection and special legislation claims. Instead, it should have addressed the plaintiffs' argument that the Act is unconstitutional because it violated the Illinois Constitution's 'three-readings' requirement for passing legislation. This dissent argues for abandoning the 'enrolled-bill doctrine,' which prevents courts from reviewing legislative procedures. The legislative record shows that the substance of the bill was completely changed at the last minute without undergoing the required three readings in each house. This clear constitutional violation renders the entire Act invalid, obviating any need to analyze the firearm restrictions themselves.
Dissenting - Justice O’Brien
Yes. The exemptions in the Protect Illinois Communities Act violate the special legislation clause of the Illinois Constitution. This dissent disagrees with the majority's 'similarly situated' analysis, arguing that the analysis must be framed by the Act's purpose: to reduce the number of assault weapons to prevent mass shootings. The exemptions for trained professionals (including retired officers with no active duties) and grandfathered individuals do not further this purpose, as they do not reduce the number of such weapons in circulation. The classifications are therefore arbitrary and discriminate in favor of select groups without a sound, reasonable basis related to the Act's purported goal, which is the definition of prohibited special legislation.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high bar for equal protection and special legislation challenges in Illinois, establishing that the 'similarly situated' analysis is a critical and often dispositive threshold inquiry. By declining to address the Second Amendment claim on waiver grounds and the three-readings claim on jurisdictional grounds, the court leaves the most potent constitutional challenges to the Act for future litigation. The ruling demonstrates significant judicial deference to legislative classifications related to public safety and narrowly confines its review to the specific claims properly preserved on appeal.
