Illinois State Police Deny Gun Owners Are Entitled to Due Process Before Rights Are Revoked

[00:00:05]One problem is the law says not only do you need to apply for and be issued the FOY card, [music] but you have to have it on you at any time that you possess a firearm. And he objects to that. You know, that's a a situation where essentially the government can ask you for your papers to see if you are someone entitled to exercise a right. And that too is not how rights are supposed to work in this country.

[00:00:29]>> That was New Civil Liberties Alliance senior litigation council Jacob Hubert back in May telling us about the lawsuit that they filed on behalf of three Illinois residents challenging the state's firearm owners ID card in federal court. Now last week the state of Illinois and Cook County denied allegations that the state's FOID card deprivives everyone of their right to keep and bear arms. A timeline for the case is being proposed. Welcome back to the states. I'm Greg Bishop. And while I was out on vacation last week, the Illinois State Police director and the Cook County States Attorney, they provided a federal district court answers to the allegations made by plaintiff's attorneys suing the state over the Floyd card. Now, don't confuse this with other lawsuits challenging Illinois gun laws. Separate and individual cases challenging the state's gun and magazine ban could be decided by the US Supreme Court next year. This void card case being filed in federal district court by plaintiffs against Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly, Illinois Attorney Generalwami Raul, and Cook County States Attorney Eileen O'Neal Burke. May 19th, on June 12th, the state and Cook County asked for a delay in responding to those allegations.

[00:01:43]That was granted by a judge just a few days after. And then on July 13th, the state and Cook County, they filed their answers to the allegations that the law was unconstitutional.

[00:01:55]Yesterday, a joint status update was provided. We'll get to that a little bit later. But here's what the answers filed last week by the Illinois State Police and the Cook County States Attorney had to say. So attorneys for the plaintiffs that were suing over the Floyd card, they say the law deprivives everyone of the right to keep and bear arms, including the right to possess a firearm for self-defense in the home unless and until they seek and receive the state's permission. They also allege to possess any type of firearm and ammunition in Illinois and anywhere for any length of time, one must obtain the FOID card, the requirement to initiate an administrative process with all the burden being on the individual wanting to exercise their Second Amendment right. Now, the state police and Cook County, they denied those allegations.

[00:02:47]The plaintiffs sue over the FOID card.

[00:02:50]They also say that the FOID card prohibits the exercise of a fundamental right unless and until they apply for and receive the state's approval, something they say violates both the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the Second Amendment. Again, the state, they say that's not true, and they deny those allegations. The plaintiffs further alleged in their initial complaint specifically that they want to obtain a firearm for self-defense, but they refused to submit to the state's procedure. The state replied that defendants deny that the Floyd Act imposes an unconstitutional procedure.

[00:03:28]Now, they further denied other allegations and said that the defendants admit that plaintiffs purport to bring this lawsuit to seek relief described but deny that plaintiffs are entitled to any relief. Defendants admit in their answers to the plaintiff's questions that Illinois law states that if the director or director's design within Illinois State Police denies a record challenge pursuant to state law, the petitioner cannot request an administrative hearing, but rather the director shall render a final administrative decision which shall be subject to judicial review under provisions of the administrative review law in Illinois statutes. Now, plaintiffs in their initial complaint, they allege the Foid Card Act does not require the review board to provide an in-person hearing with testimony, cross-examination, or even arguments, though the board has provided for non-public hearings at which an applicant upon request may present evidence and be represented by councel.

[00:04:32]state police. They said that they admit the law allows for but does not require under all circumstances that hearings where a petitioner may be represented by council and pres present evidence relating to their request for relief but they do deny the remaining allegations as part of that particular allegation.

[00:04:51]Now, plaintiffs, they allege the review board applies easier criteria when deciding whether to grant relief to active law enforcement or whether to uh deal with certain types of mental health treatment questions.

[00:05:05]They say that the officer need only show that he did not act in a manner threatening to himself or others, sought evaluations as a result of his work, and was not treated involuntarily or admitted to a mental health facility for more than 30 days or more than once in the past 5 years. Now, state police, they just simply say they deny the allegations in that paragraph. Now, further in this filing to the federal district courts, plaintiffs say that under the Foy scheme, the states deny all residents the right to keep and bear arms unless and until they satisfy the Illinois State Police that they're eligible and reserves the right to revoke permission instantly at any time.

[00:05:48]State police, they denied that allegation. Defendants, they said they denied plaintiffs that Christopher Lawrence and Kim Dalton have been injured. These are two plaintiffs that want to get firearms for self-defense, but don't want to have to comply with a state law they feel is violating their rights. And the state police, they admit that the third plaintiff, Justin Tucker, does indeed possess a valid FOID card. A revelation state police rarely do, but they did make that revelation in state and federal district court. Now, the defendants, Illinois State Police and Cook County, they deny that the plaintiff, Tucker, has been injured. The plaintiffs say Illinois's Floyd card requirement injures Tucker for an additional reason that before his card expiration, he'll be required to submit a renewal application and pay the fees to continue to be allowed to possess any firearm or ammunition for self-defense in his home upon his card's expiration.

[00:06:47]State police they deny that allegation in that particular point. Now one thing other that is important to point out here is this series of questions. If you look at close to the last page of the filing number 60 individuals have a liberty interest and their right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense. The defendants Illinois State Police quote deny that allegation. They also deny that a state must provide due process before depriving them of fundamental constitutional rights. But later they admit that fundamental constitutional rights may be denied without any process whatsoever. But they deny further allegations about depriving rights. Now the state further provided their affirmative defense. They say plaintiffs do not have standing because they have not suffered harm from the defendant's actions. They also say the firearm Owners identification card is a constitutional shall issue licensing regime under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruin. They also argue in their affirmative defense that the firearm owners identification card is consistent with the nation's history and tradition of firearm regulation. So what's next? Clearly these are allegations and answers that have been made in federal court. Well, on Monday, yesterday, plaintiffs and defendants, they filed a joint status update with the court, saying that plaintiffs complaints asserts two claims under section USC1983.

[00:08:22]One alleging that Illinois Firearm Owners identification card act violates the due process clause of the 14th amendment and another allegation that the act violates the right to keep and bear arms under the second and 14th amendments. Now, plaintiffs further go on to say in the affirmative defense stated in their answer to plaintiff's complaint defendants, the U. Secretary of uh the Illinois State Police and the attorney general, they raised three factual and legal issues. And that's whether plaintiffs have alleged injuries that can support their standing to raise their claims, whether the Floyd card is a constitutional shall licensing regime, and whether the FOID card is consistent with the nation's history and tradition of firearm regulation. Plaintiffs anticipate written discovery and potential depositions regarding the defendants's administration and enforcement of the Foy Act. defendants.

[00:09:15]They anticipate written and uh depositions and discovery regarding the plaintiff's standing, including their alleged qualifications for a FOD card and the harms they allege in their complaint, as well as the administrative and enforcement of the Floyd Card Act.

[00:09:30]Defendants also anticipate comprehensive expert discovery related to the history and tradition of firearms regulation in the United States. So, how long is this going to take? Now, plaintiffs propose in their joint status update August 3rd as the deadline for disclosures.

[00:09:49]Defendants propose August 21st, 2026 as the deadline for their initial rule disclosures. Defendants propose a deadline for plaintiffs expert disclosures and delivery of expert reports by April 1st of 2027.

[00:10:04]So, months away. The deadline for defendants expert disclosure and delivery of expert reports May 1st, 2027. Again, months away. A deadline for supplemental expert reports due May 15th, 2027. And expert discovery expected to be completed by July 2nd, 2027. Now, defendants have requested a jury trial to answer these questions from plaintiffs suing the state. Parties anticipate that a trial would last no more than 4 days. We'll be watching the docket closely on this case and other challenges against gun control laws across the country. Have you got something on your radar you'd like us to pin for further coverage? Be sure to leave a comment below.

[00:10:51][music] [music]