Chicago City Wire

Illinois State Rep. Brad Stephens (R-Chicago) said a portion of the SAFE-T Act has been ruled unconstitutional, which he believes is a result of Democrats pushing the bill through without working across the aisle.

In an attack against the legislation, Rep. Stephens said, "Democrats in the legislature refused to work collaboratively when they passed the SAFE-T Act, resulting in a confusing and reckless policy. The provision of the law ending cash bail was recently ruled unconstitutional by a Kankakee County judge and the matter will now be heard by the Illinois Supreme Court."

Just hours before the elimination of cash bail, a provision included in the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act, was set to take effect on Jan. 1, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered a temporary stay so justices can review the appeal made to the lower court, Illinois Policy reported. 

The Illinois Constitution's separation of powers and Crime Victims' Bill of Rights were violated by the pretrial release provision of the proposed bill, according to a Kankakee judge. This ruling was then appealed by the state. In Illinois, cash bail would be eliminated for the first time. People who are unable to afford bail are held before trial while people who can afford bail are released.

Stephens said in a statement, “I am encouraged by last week’s Illinois Supreme Court order that stays the end of cash bail. This is a welcome bit of news, as chaos was likely to ensue across the state due to the confusing patchwork of counties that would have had cash bail or not. Ending cash bail was an unconstitutional and dangerous policy decision. I applaud this ruling and will await the Supreme Court’s review of the case on appeal.”

A date has not yet been set for the justices to review the state's appeal, according to Illinois Policy. Almost all of the SAFE-T Act has been implemented, but some portions, such as body cameras for police officers, will be phased in over time.

Circuit Judge Thomas Cunnington of Kankakee wrote in his ruling, "Because, as the Illinois Supreme Court has determined, the administration of the justice system is an inherent power of the courts upon which the legislature may not infringe and the setting of bail falls within that administrative power, the appropriateness of bail rests with the authority of the court and may not be determined by legislative fiat. Therefore, the court finds that Public Acts 101- 652 and 102-1104 as they relate only to the pretrial release provisions do violate this separation of powers principle underlying our system of governance by depriving the courts of their inherent authority to administer and control their courtrooms and to set bail."