State Supreme Courts Resource

4 Democrats, 3 Republicans

• IL. CONST. ART. I, § 11. Limitation of Penalties after Conviction: All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship. No conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. No person shall be transported out of the State for an offense committed within the State.
• Note: Not much case law on the rehabilitation provision; in practice, protections are not materially stronger than those provided by the federal Eighth Amendment.

• 740 ILCS 23, Illinois Civil Rights Act (ICRA)
  • Sec. 5. Discrimination prohibited.
    Sec. 5. Discrimination prohibited.
    • a) No unit of State, county, or local government in Illinois shall:(
    • (1) exclude a person from participation in, deny a person the benefits of, or subject a person to discrimination under any program or activity on the grounds of that person’s race, color, national origin, or gender; or
    • (2) utilize criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, national origin, or gender.
    • (b) Any party aggrieved by conduct that violates subsection (a) may bring a civil lawsuit, in a federal district court or State circuit court, against the offending unit of government. Any State claim brought in federal district court shall be a supplemental claim to a federal claim. This lawsuit must be brought not later than 2 years after the violation of subsection (a). If the court finds that a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) has occurred, the court may award to the plaintiff actual damages. The court, as it deems appropriate, may grant as relief any permanent or preliminary negative or mandatory injunction, temporary restraining order, or other order.
    • (c) Upon motion, a court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees and other litigation expenses, to a plaintiff who is a prevailing party in any action brought:
    • (1) pursuant to subsection (b); or
    • (2) to enforce a right arising under the Illinois Constitution.
• A claim under the Illinois Civil Rights Act requires only a disparate impact regardless of discriminatory intent. McFadden v. Board of Educ. for Illinois School Dist. U-46, 984 F. Supp. 2d 882, 889 (N.D. Ill. 2013).

• Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 1003–8–7(b). Corporal punishment and disciplinary restrictions on diet are prohibited. Disciplinary restrictions on clothing, bedding, mail, visitations, the use of toilets, washbowls, showers[,] and the prison’s library of legal materials shall be imposed only for abuse of such privileges or facilities.

• 730 ILCS 5/3-8-7, Isolated Confinement Restriction Act, Status: Did not pass before session ended; in Rules Committee. Summary: Would provide that a person may not be placed in isolated confinement for more than 10 consecutive days or for more than 10 days in any 180-day period. Would provide that while out of cell, committed persons may have access to activities, including, but not limited, to: job assignments, educational classes, vocational classes, meals, recreation, yard or gymnasium, day room, medical appointments, visits, and group therapy, with exceptions. Would require the Department of Corrections to report on the use of isolated confinement.

• 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. § 5/3-6-3(d). If a lawsuit is filed by a prisoner in an Illinois or federal court against the State, the Department of Corrections, or the Prisoner Review Board, or against any of their officers or employees, and the court makes a specific finding that a pleading, motion, or other paper filed by the prisoner is frivolous, the Department of Corrections shall conduct a hearing to revoke up to 180 days of sentence credit by bringing charges against the prisoner sought to be deprived of the sentence credits before the Prisoner Review Board as provided in subparagraph (a)(8) of Section 3-3-2 of this Code. If the prisoner has not accumulated 180 days of sentence credit at the time of the finding, then the Prisoner Review Board may revoke all sentence credit accumulated by the prisoner.
• 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. § 5/22-105. If a prisoner confined in an Illinois Department of Corrections facility files a pleading, motion, or other filing which purports to be a legal document in a case seeking post-conviction relief under Article 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, pursuant to Section 116-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, in a habeas corpus action under Article X of this Code, in a claim under the Court of Claims Act, or a second or subsequent petition for relief from judgment under Section 2-1401 of this Code or in another action against the State, the Illinois Department of Corrections, or the Prisoner Review Board, or against any of their officers or employees and the Court makes a specific finding that the pleading, motion, or other filing which purports to be a legal document filed by the prisoner is frivolous, the prisoner is responsible for the full payment of filing fees and actual court costs. On filing the action or proceeding the court shall assess and, when funds exist, collect as a partial payment of any court costs required by law a first time payment of 50% of the average monthly balance of the prisoner’s trust fund account for the past 6 months. Thereafter 50% of all deposits into the prisoner’s individual account under Sections 3-4-3 and 3-12-5 of the Unified Code of Corrections administered by the Illinois Department of Corrections shall be withheld until the actual court costs are collected in full. The Department of Corrections shall forward any moneys withheld to the court of jurisdiction. If a prisoner is released before the full costs are collected, the Department of Corrections shall forward the amount of costs collected through the date of release. The court of jurisdiction is responsible for sending the Department of Corrections a copy of the order mandating the amount of court fees to be paid. Nothing in this Section prohibits an applicant from filing an action or proceeding if the applicant is unable to pay the court costs.

• “Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy to enforce, as a matter of right, the performance of official duties by a public official where the official is not exercising discretion. A court will not grant a writ of mandamus unless the petitioner can demonstrate a clear, affirmative right to relief, a clear duty of the official to act, and clear authority in the official to comply with the writ. The writ will not lie when its effect is to substitute the court’s judgment or discretion for the official’s judgment or discretion. Mandamus relief, therefore, is not appropriate to regulate a course of official conduct or to enforce the performance of official duties generally.” Knox v. Godinez, 2012 IL App (4th) 110325, ¶ 16, 966 N.E.2d 1233, 1237 (citing Dye v. Pierce, 369 Ill. App. 3d 683, 686–87, 311 Ill. Dec. 293, 868 N.E. 2d 293, 296 (2006) and Hatch v. Szymanski, 325 Ill.App.3d 736, 739, 259 Ill. Dec. 805, 759 N.E.2d 585, 588 (2001)).