“…The plain language of the Pension Protection Clause, the
stated intentions of its drafters, and this Court's precedent all compel the
conclusion that the Act [SB 1] exceeds the constitutional limits of legislative
power. The Pension Protection Clause unambiguously prohibits the diminishment
of public pension benefits. Notwithstanding the defendants' insistence that the
Clause incorporates unstated exceptions to that absolute bar, the Clause cannot
be read to include the defendants' implied terms. It contains no exception for
exercises of the General Assembly's police powers or reserved sovereign powers.
“In fact, the Pension Protection Clause was intended specifically to
foreclose the type of justifications offered by the defendants in support of
the Act. Equally flawed is the defendants'
argument that the Pension Protection Clause itself is an unconstitutional
relinquishment of the State's sovereign powers. Because the Pension Protection
Clause is a constitutional restriction
on the legislature's authority, it is not on par with contractual or statutory
commitments that conceivably may yield to the General Assembly's sovereign
powers. Given the drafters' intent to protect pension benefits in times of
fiscal distress, the defendants' novel approach to constitutional
interpretation is particularly unfounded.
“In short, the circuit court correctly upheld
the plain language and purpose of the Pension Protection Clause, faithfully
adhered to this Court's precedent, and appropriately enforced a constitutional
limitation on legislative power. Further, the circuit court correctly
determined that the Act is not severable. Accordingly, the judgment of the
circuit court should be affirmed.
I. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
“The standard of review is de novo. Best v. Taylor Mach. Works, 179
Ill. 2d 367, 389 (1997). Where, as here, the parties have filed cross-motions
for summary judgment, they ‘agree that only a question of law is involved, and
they invite the court to decide the issues based on the record.’ Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc., 2012
IL 113270, 1125.
“The language used in a constitutional
provision ‘should be given its plain and commonly understood meaning unless it
is clearly evident that a contrary meaning was intended,’ and someone who
argues that the language ‘should not be given its natural meaning
understandably has the burden of showing why it should not.’ Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Bd.
of Elections, 65 Ill. 2d 453, 464-65 (1976)
(also observing that this is a
“If a statute is unconstitutional, ‘courts are obligated to declare it invalid,’ and this duty ‘cannot be evaded or neglected, no matter how desirable or beneficial the legislation may appear to be.’ Madclux v. Blagojevich, 233 Ill. 2d 508, 528 (2009).
“Finally, ‘to the extent that there may be
any remaining doubt regarding the meaning or effect’ of the ‘pension protection
provisions’ in the Pension Protection Clause, ‘we are obliged to resolve that
doubt in favor of the members of the State's public retirement systems.’ Kanerva, 2014 IL 115811, 1155.
|
“II. THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
VIOLATES THE PENSION PROTECTION CLAUSE.
“A. The Plain Language of the Pension Protection
Clause Defeats
Any Defense of the Act.
“On its face, the Pension Protection Clause is
absolute and contains no exceptions:
“‘Membership in any pension or retirement
system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual
relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.’
“See Ill. Constitution, Art. XIII, § 5. The
Pension Protection Clause does two distinct things. First, it deems membership
in State and certain other public pension systems to be a contractual relationship
with the employee that is ‘enforceable’ by the courts. Id. Second, it restricts legislative power to modify the benefits
of that contractual relationship by mandating that such benefits ‘shall not be
diminished or impaired.’ Id. That
second provision has independent significance and must be given effect.
“The defendants do not contend that the plain
language of the Pension Protection Clause includes an express reference to
police powers. Instead, they insist that the Contract Clause (Art. I, § 16) and
its particular limitations are implicitly ‘incorporate[d]’ into
the Pension Protection Clause. (Def. Br. at 19.) That argument is fundamentally
flawed for several reasons.
“The defendants' argument turns the plain text
of the Pension Protection Clause on its head. In the defendants' view, the
absence of an explicit disavowal of an implied exception for the exercise of
police powers in the Pension Protection Clause means that there is an implied
exception in the Clause. (Def. Br. at 44-45.)
“In essence, they would require an explicit
statement in the Pension Protection Clause that it has no implied exceptions.
That, however, is precisely the opposite of this Court's approach to
constitutional and statutory interpretation. See Kanerva, 2014 IL 115811, Ill 41 (refusing to read restrictions and
limitations into the Pension Protection Clause ‘that the drafters did not
express and the citizens of Illinois did not approve’); Prazen v. Shoop, 2013 IL 115035, ¶ 38 (this Court ‘can neither
restrict nor enlarge the meaning of an unambiguous statute’); Henrich v. Libertyville High Sch., 186
Ill. 2d 381, 394-95 (1998) (same).
“Moreover, when the drafters of the
Constitution intended to create exceptions for exercises of police power, they
knew how to do so explicitly. See Ill. Constitution, Art. I, § 22 (‘Subject only to the police power, the
right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’)
(emphasis added). The drafters chose not to include such an exception in the
clear and unambiguous terms of the Pension Protection Clause.
“Contrary to the defendants' argument, the
Pension Protection Clause's guarantee that pension benefits ‘shall not be
diminished or impaired’ does not mirror the language of the Contract Clause. In
addition to prohibiting the impairment of pension benefits, the Pension
Protection Clause guarantees that such benefits shall not be ‘diminished.’ See
Ill. Constitution, Art. XIII, § 5. The word ‘diminished’ appears nowhere in the
Contract
“When the word ‘diminished’ is used elsewhere
in the Constitution, it is given absolute effect. See Ill. Constitution, Art.
VI, § 14 (judicial salaries ‘shall not be diminished to take effect during
their terms of office’); see also Jorgensen
v. Blagojevich, 211 111. 2d 286, 316 (2004) (giving absolute effect to
section 14 of Article VI).
“Because it defeats their preferred
interpretation, the defendants attempt to read the word ‘diminished’ out of the
Pension Protection Clause. The defendants argue that the word ‘diminished’ is
synonymous with ‘impaired’ and is a mere redundancy. (Def. Br. at 29-30.) Their
attempt to reduce "diminished’ to a redundancy runs afoul of a fundamental
principle of constitutional interpretation: ‘[E]ach word, clause or sentence must,
if possible, be given some reasonable meaning.’ Hirschfield v. Barrett, 40 Ill. 2d 224, 230 (1968); see also Oak Park Fed. Say. & Loan Ass 'n v.
Village of Oak Park, 54 III. 2d 200, 203 (1973) (same)…”
from Brief of ISEA RSEA Heaton and Harrison Plaintiffs-Appellees
|
