Judge says, "You should have sued the General Assembly"
Judge Peter Flynn, of the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, has issued a ruling in my Driver's Education Fee lawsuit.
That's the case in which I challenged, in behalf of my daughter, Dawn, the $350 fee that Buffalo Grove High School and School District 214 charges for its Driver's Education Behind-the-Wheel class. (The classroom portion of Driver's Ed is free.)
Dawn and I challenged the amount of the fee because the $350 charge is used mostly to cover the salary and benefits of Driver's Ed teachers.
Article X, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution, says, in pertinent part:
"Education in public schools through the secondary level shall be free."
The Illinois Supreme Court, in E. L. Segar v. The Board of Education of the School District of the City of Rockford, 371 Ill. 418, 148 N.E. 289, decided on June 18, 1925, prohibits the public school districts from charging students for staffing costs. In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court said, in pertinent part:
"A system of schools which permits all persons of school age residing in the district to attend classes and receive instruction in the subjects taught, without a tuition charge, provides free schools, and the fact that the parents of pupils financially able to do so are required to provide their children with text-books, writing materials and other supplies required for the personal use of such pupils does not change the character of the school."
The main argument by defendant School District 214 was their "Moment of Silence" defense: that they were just doing what the Illinois General Assembly authorized them to do.
My claim was that the General Assembly does not have the right to authorize anybody to violate the constitutional rights of citizens, as interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court in Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, 211 Ill.2d 286, 316; 811 N.E.2d 652, 670; 2004 Ill. LEXIS680, 49; 285 Ill. Dec. 165 (2004). That was a case in which the General Assembly and ex-Governor Blagojevich tried to save money by not paying judges raises that were guaranteed to them in a provision of the Constitution.
Here are two quotes from that case:
"No principle of law permits us to suspend constitutional requirements for economic reasons, no matter how compelling those reasons may seem."
"Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution even in case of great emergency."
Judge Flynn declined to rule in favor of or against the arguments made by either the School District or me. Instead, Judge Flynn made up his own argument, and ruled on his argument without allowing either side to brief the court on his argument. ("Brief the court" means file briefs in support or opposition to a claim, after having an opportunity to do research on the claim.)
Judge Flynn said that I sued the wrong parties ( the other defendant was the State Board of Education, which was represented by Attorney General Lisa Madigan ). Judge Flynn said that I should have sued the Illinois General Assembly, because they were the ones that approved the practice of charging tuition to public school students for Behind-the-Wheel Driver's Ed.
I disagree with Judge Flynn's decision, so I'm appealing. I feel that Judge Flynn should have ruled either in favor of my argument or of my opponents' argument(s), rather than coming up with an argument of his own and ruling on that.
My opponents may not even agree with or support Judge Flynn's argument that the proper party to sue is the General Assembly, so how are they going to defend that argument on appeal?
Please leave a comment, below, to let me know what you think, and tell your friends about this.
I look forward to your comments on this one, especially if you think that courts should rule on the questions that are presented to them, rather than the court making up it's own question, ruling on that and not ruling on the arguments that the parties to the litigation want ruled upon.
Subscribe to
Godless in Chicago and receive an automated e-mail each morning, letting you know what new posts I've added during the past 24 hours.
1 Comment
Ted G said:
Rob, I appreciate your thankless efforts to uphold the constitutions we agree to live under and therefore expect others to.
I hope the appeal works. But I don't really see our elected judges taking the law (or facts) any more seriously than any other elected officials, as already demonstrated repeatedly by their responses to most of your efforts over the years.
If the appeal doesn't succeed, I hope you are able to sue the General Assembly.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: