Copyright 2022 All Rights Reserved.

August 13, 2022

Rep Bailey files Reply to Objection and Emergency Supplemental Motions in Federal Court –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On May 26, 2020

Illinois (ECWd) –

After Governor Pritzker removed the Bailey v Pritzker case to federal court, and later objected to the Motion to Expedite, Rep Darren Bailey filed his Reply to Objection to Motion to Expedite, and also filed his Ex A: Supplemental Emergency Motion.

There is a status call early this afternoon in the federal court.

Key points from Bailey’s Reply to Objection on Motion to Expedite:

  • As discussed below, this is precisely the situation in which this Court should expedite assessment of its subject matter jurisdiction.
  • Defendant makes much of Plaintiff’s voluntary vacatur of a temporary restraining order. There is no question Plaintiff did so. However, Plaintiff did so in light of facts that came to his attention after entry of the temporary restraining order. Among other things, following entry of the TRO Plaintiff became aware of an opinion of
    the Illinois Attorney General that Defendant’s authority is constrained as Plaintiff urges in his complaint and first amended complaint.
  • In suggesting the lack of an emergency here, Defendant should consider his filings and insistence on emergency relief. After Plaintiff agreed to vacatur of the TRO, Defendant urged the Illinois Supreme Court to enter a supervisory order on an emergency basis.
  • Defendant told the Illinois Supreme Court that, notwithstanding vacatur of the TRO, it needed to act quickly in connection with Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant lacked authority under applicable Illinois law to issue certain
    of his proclamations and executive orders.
  • Having invoked this Court’s jurisdiction, Defendant now needs the comfort of time, but offers no reason that he cannot respond immediately.
  • Why has Defendant stepped away from the urgency he posited in the Illinois Supreme Court? Because he now wants this matter to languish. He wants delay. He wants to ensure that his invalid executive orders remain unscathed pending their self-imposed “expiration.” That is the only reason he removed this case, and that is exactly why he opposes expedited consideration of the Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Remand.
  • Every day, every hour and every minute those orders remain in place Plaintiff and millions of other Illinois residents are constrained in their daily activities. Yes, there is an emergency, and, yes, this situation cries for expedited relief.
Reply to Objection to Motion to Expedite

.
Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link.

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

RELATED

6 Comments
  • Lyn P
    Posted at 12:01h, 26 May

    Thank you. Hoping the judge shares the mindset of this filing.

  • Bubba
    Posted at 12:58h, 26 May

    just another stall tactic

  • PK
    Posted at 13:50h, 26 May

    Anyone else compelled to keyword search the internet for more info on the ‘mootness doctrine?’

    Moot by Friday eh, Mr. Verticchio.

    • Johnjohn
      Posted at 16:16h, 26 May

      Any updates?

  • Pritzker is evil
    Posted at 17:32h, 26 May

    Do we know what happened on the status call yet?

  • Shackleford
    Posted at 19:18h, 26 May

    Take a look at the judges of the southern illinois district court.

$