tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797875972831999598.post2927962849770140631..comments2023-11-22T04:27:07.521-06:00Comments on glen brown: The Honorable John Belz handed down his ruling today from the 7th Judicial Circuit Court stating that pension rights are constitutionally protected for retirees in Illinoisgbrownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13435049339082622611noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797875972831999598.post-18295435971113886322014-11-21T18:13:14.528-06:002014-11-21T18:13:14.528-06:00From Senator Pamela Althoff:
Circuit Court Judge ...From Senator Pamela Althoff:<br /><br />Circuit Court Judge John Belz ruled in Sangamon County that the SB1 pension reforms are unconstitutional. He ruled that the legislation is invalid in its entirety and the constitution prevents any implementation of the reforms. The Attorney General has announced her intention to appeal Judge Belz’s decision directly to the Illinois Supreme Court. If the high Court takes the case, it is likely that oral arguments would be made in September, 2015, with a decision on the constitutionality around January 1, 2016.<br />gbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13435049339082622611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797875972831999598.post-38448964787058520822014-11-21T15:48:54.868-06:002014-11-21T15:48:54.868-06:00from Today's Court Decision
Judge Belz:
The d...from Today's Court Decision<br />Judge Belz:<br /><br />The defendants have attempted to create a factual record to the effect that, if a reserved sovereign power to diminish or impair pensions existed, the facts would justify an exercise of that power. The defendants can cite to no Illinois case that would allow this affirmative defense. Because the Court finds that no such power exists, it need not and does not reach the issue of whether the facts would justify the exercise of such a power if it existed, and the Court will not require the plaintiffs to respond to the defendants' evidentiary submissions. The plaintiffs having obtained complete relief, the Court also need not address at this time the plaintiffs' additional claims that the Act is unconstitutional or illegal on other grounds. See Kanerva, 2014 IL 115811, 1158. <br /><br />In summary, the State of Illinois made a constitutionally protected promise to its employees concerning their pension benefits. Under established and uncontroverted Illinois law, the State of Illinois cannot break this promise.<br />gbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13435049339082622611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797875972831999598.post-24982589135705150662014-11-21T15:46:31.014-06:002014-11-21T15:46:31.014-06:00from Today's Court Decision
Judge Belz:
The A...from Today's Court Decision<br />Judge Belz:<br /><br />The Act without question diminishes and impairs the benefits of membership in State retirement systems. Illinois Courts have consistently held over time that the Illinois Pension Clause's protection against the diminishment or impairment of pension benefits is absolute and without exception. The Illinois Supreme Court has "consistently invalidated amendment to the Pension Code where the result is to diminish benefits." McNamee v. State, 173 Ii.l. 2d 433, 445 (1996). In their affirmative matter, the defendants assert that the Act is nonetheless justified as an exercise of the State's reserved sovereign powers or police powers. The Court finds as a matter of law that the defendants' affirmative matter provides no legally valid defense. The Court "may not rewrite the pension protection clause to include restrictions and limitations that the drafters did not express and the citizens of Illinois did not approve." Kanerva, 2014 IL 115811, ¶ 41. The Pension Protection Clause contains no exception, restriction or limitation for an exercise of the State's police powers or reserved sovereign powers. Illinois courts, therefore, have rejected the argument that the State retains an implied or reserved power to diminish or impair pension benefits. See Fell v. Bd of Trustees of Judges Retirement System, 107 Il1.2d 158, 167-68 (1985) (holding that, to recognize such a power, "we would have to ignore the plain language of the Constitution of Illinois"); Kraus v. Rd of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Vill. of Niles, 72 Ill. App. 3d. 833, 851 (1979).<br /><br />Because the Act diminishes and impairs pension benefits and there is no legally cognizable affirmative defense, the Court must conclude that the Act violates the Pension Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution. The Court holds that Public Act 98-0599 is unconstitutional.<br />gbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13435049339082622611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797875972831999598.post-3787994433880707242014-11-21T15:13:39.188-06:002014-11-21T15:13:39.188-06:00from Today's Court Decision
Judge Belz:
The d...from Today's Court Decision<br />Judge Belz:<br /><br />The defendants have attempted to create a factual record. to the effect that, if a reserved sovereign power to diminish or impair pensions existed, the facts would justify an exercise of that power. The defendants can cite to no Illinois case that would allow this affirmative defense. Because the Court finds that no such power exists, it need not and does not reach the issue of whether the facts would justify the exercise of such a power if it existed, and the Court will not require the plaintiffs to respond to the defendants' evidentiary submissions. The plaintiffs having obtained complete relief, the Court also need not address at this time the plaintiffs' additional claims that the Act is unconstitutional or illegal on other grounds. See Kanerva, 2014 IL 115811,1158. in summary, the State of Illinois made a constitutionally protected promise to its employees concerning their pension benefits. Under established and uncontroverted Illinois law, the State of Illinois cannot break this promise.<br />gbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13435049339082622611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797875972831999598.post-4822201901650812702014-11-21T15:07:30.224-06:002014-11-21T15:07:30.224-06:00from Today's Court Decision
Judge Belz:
WHER...from Today's Court Decision <br />Judge Belz:<br /><br />WHEREFORE, the Court orders as follows:<br /><br />a. The Plaintiffs' Motions are granted. The defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is denied, with prejudice, because the Court finds that there is no police power or reserved sovereign power to diminish pension benefits. Pursuant to 735 TICS 5/2-701, the Court enters a final declaratory judgment that Public Act 98-0599 is unconstitutional and void in its entirety;<br />b. The temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction entered previously in this case is hereby made permanent. The defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing or implementing any provision of Public Act 98-0599;<br />c. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a), the Court finds that there is no just reason for delaying either enforcement of this order or appeal or both.<br />gbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13435049339082622611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797875972831999598.post-70327252024337715292014-11-21T14:22:13.823-06:002014-11-21T14:22:13.823-06:00Judge Belz simply looked at the Constitution and s...Judge Belz simply looked at the Constitution and said it means what it states. Amazing how many lawyers in government as well as the private sector have been unable to grasp that simple concept.<br />Thank you, Judge Belz!Opahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06373387676301979245noreply@blogger.com