Illinois Supreme Court rejects briefs from pension-reform supporters

Given the importance of pension reform in Illinois, many groups wanted to weigh in.

The Illinois Supreme Court has refused to consider nine amicus briefs filed by groups that want the court to uphold the state’s pension-reform law.

In important court cases, such as the fast-tracked pension-reform case at hand, groups that are not parties to the lawsuit often submit amicus – or “friend of the court” – briefs that offer additional perspectives on the issues. For example, an amicus might show how the court’s decision will affect other people besides the parties to the case or might provide additional information on a relevant subject in which the amicus has special expertise. Generally, amicus briefs are submitted in support of one side or the other, but they can also be neutral.

Given the importance of pension reform in Illinois, many groups wanted to weigh in.

The Illinois Policy Institute, for one, submitted a brief explaining why the Illinois Constitution’s pension clause should give pension benefits the same protection that the U.S. Constitution’s contract clause gives to all other contractual rights – but not the absolute protection the plaintiffs in the lawsuit demand, which is unheard of in the law.

The Illinois Municipal League submitted a brief explaining the consequences of the current gross underfunding of many local pension systems – cuts to services and missed payments to retirees – if the state can’t enact reforms.

Additional amicus briefs came from other groups, including the City of Chicago; Chicago Public Schools, the Chicago Park District, and the Chicago Transit Authority (together); a group of social-service agencies; the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago; the International Municipal Lawyers Association; a group of professors who are experts in contract law; and a group of professors who are experts in constitutional law.

But the court turned them all away. In a two-page order, the court said it would not accept the amicus briefs because of its earlier decision granting Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s request to expedite the appeal.

The court didn’t explain further, but perhaps it thinks it wouldn’t be fair to allow amicus briefs supporting the attorney general’s position when the attorney general asked for and received a short briefing schedule, with no deadline extensions allowed, which wouldn’t give the other side much time to review and respond to the briefs.

In any event, Illinoisans now must trust that even with an expedited schedule, the court will take all the time – and consider all the information – it needs to issue a well-reasoned, informed decision.

The plaintiffs’ response to the attorney general’s brief is due Feb. 16, and the court will hear oral arguments from both sides in March.