Illinois (ECWd) –
Illinois Governor Pritzker filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to expedite the hearing on [Bailey’s] emergency motion to remand, in the Bailey v. Pritzker case which was taken to the federal courts last week on a motion by Pritzker.
In the memorandum, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, acting as Pritzker’s attorney, claimed the following:
- The Court should reject Bailey’s request for the Court to remand the case sua sponte without even allowing the Governor to
respond on the merits of removal.
- Bailey provides no basis for expediting a hearing on his remand motion.
- To the contrary, his actions in this litigation bely any claim of an emergency. He vacated the TRO he previously obtained in state court, delayed two weeks before filing an amended complaint and, after filing it, did not seek emergency relief or an expedited hearing.
- In the meantime, the Governor’s counsel acknowledges the Court’s status call on May 26, 2020, at 1 p.m. and will be on that call.
Pritzker did not explain, in his filing, the reasons Bailey voluntarily vacated the previous TRO, nor did he explain why the case was removed to federal courts, on the eve of the summary judgment motion, when there are essentially no federal claims on the face of the amended complaint.
Bailey vacated the TRO because new information came to light after the TRO was granted. The new information consisted of a an Illinois Attorney General Opinion which talked about the limited powers of the Governor of Illinois. Those being, the governor cannot extend a 30 day emergency declaration.
Pritzker also did not mention that even after Defendant agreed to vacatur of the TRO, they also urged the Illinois Supreme Court to enter a Supervisory Order on an emergency basis.Governor's memorandum in opposition to motion to expedite