Anne M. Burke
Lloyd A. Karmeier
SPRINGFIELD — In a big win for local governments, the state’s high court today turned away a challenge to Chicago’s red-light camera program, preserving hundreds of millions of dollars in fees that have accrued since its inception in 2003.
In a one-page per curiam ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court said it could not come to terms on a substantive decision because two of the seven justices recused themselves, and the four votes needed for an opinion either way could not be attained.
Because of that, the lower-court decision that upheld the cameras program was, essentially, approved.
“In this case, two [j]ustices of this [c]ourt have recused themselves and the remaining members of the [c]ourt are divided so that it is not possible to secure the constitutionally required concurrence of four judges for a decision,” the high court filing says.
“Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The effect of this dismissal is the same as an affirmance by an equally divided court of the decision under review but is of no precedential value.”
Justices Anne M. Burke and Lloyd A. Karmeier recused themselves in the case.
The justices usually don’t disclose why they opt for recusal — though Karmeier earlier this year explained in a 16-page filing why he would not recuse himself in Price v. Phillip Morris, a class-action suit against a tobacco company that puts billions of dollars at stake.
Joseph R. Tybor, the high court’s spokesman, said neither Karmeier nor Burke gave a reason for their decision to step out of the red-light camera case.
Burke recused herself before oral arguments. But Karmeier sat in on the arguments that took place in May.
“For whatever reason, Justice Karmeier recused himself. That reason did not become apparent until after the oral arguments,” Tybor said today.
Had the court struck down the program, Chicago and other municipalities might have had to reimburse motorists for the $100 tickets they received as a result of being flagged by the cameras for running red lights at intersections.
Estimates vary on how much the program has generated over the last decade, but for Chicago, the total is likely close to $500 million.
Two lower courts that previously ruled on the matter weren’t persuaded by the plaintiffs’ argument that the Chicago ordinance creating the camera program in 2003 violated a state law preventing cities from locally regulating moving vehicles.
The plaintiffs also contended that a 2006 law passed by the state legislature explicitly authorizing cameras in Chicago, the collar counties and the Metro East area near St. Louis was unconstitutional because it arbitrarily gave power to certain communities and not others.
A group of motorists who received red-light tickets filed suit in 2010. The following year, then-Cook County Circuit Judge Michael B. Hyman tossed the suit, saying the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because they already paid their fines.
The 1st District Appellate Court dismissed the challenge for other reasons in 2013.
Justice Aurelia Pucinski wrote that the red-light ordinance was not illegal because it fits within the parameters of standard state traffic laws.
She cited a 2000 ruling that upheld the village of Mundelein’s ordinance allowing police to stop drivers for not wearing seat belts and said the state Vehicle Code allows cities to regulate traffic-control devices.
While state law prohibits cities from regulating moving vehicles, the cameras were not such a regulation because the photos of drivers running red lights depicted a singular moment in time, Pucinski wrote.
And the 2006 state law is not unconstitutional because it is rationally based on population differences around the state, she added in the opinion.
In a statement, city Law Department spokesman John Holden said officials are “pleased” the high court left the lower court’s ruling “and the red light camera program’s proven public safety benefits” in effect.
Patrick J. Keating, a partner at Roberts, McGivney, Zagotta LLC who represented the plaintiffs — and whose wife was among the group suing — said he was “still a little stunned” hours after the ruling came out.
“I think we’re surprised and disappointed to not have a substantive ruling from the Supreme Court,” he said. “We respect their decision and appreciate the consideration that the justices gave the case.”
The high court’s posture on the case today is unusual, but not unprecedented.
Kirk C. Jenkins, a partner at Sedgwick LLP who tracks high court decisions, said it was likely the first time the justices failed to get four votes on a decision since 2005’s Vill v. Industrial Commerce Commission, in which the recusal of then-Chief Justice Robert R. Thomas led to a 3-3 split among the court.
J. Timothy Eaton, a partner at Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP and immediate past president of The Chicago Bar Association, said it was “unfortunate” Illinois doesn’t have a method for appointing temporary justices to rule in cases in which sitting justices recuse themselves.
“In some states, they turn to retired Supreme Court justices; in other states, they look at the appellate court to have justices sit,” Eaton said.
Keating, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said there is at least one silver lining to the court’s move today.
“I would say that we are heartened that at least (two) of the justices believed strongly enough in the claims raised by the plaintiffs that they prefer to go this route rather than join an opinion in favor of our opponents,” he said.
The case is Elizabeth Keating et al. v. City of Chicago, No. 116054.