The stated purpose of the Judicial Districts Act of 2021 (JDA) “is to redraw the Judicial Districts to meet the requirements of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 by providing that outside of the First District the State ‘shall be divided by law into four Judicial Districts of substantially equal population, each of which shall be compact and composed of contiguous counties.’”  Several justices of the Illinois Supreme Court and appellate court do not reside in the judicial district, as redrawn by the JDA, to which they were elected or appointed.

In their article in the Illinois State Bar Association’s Bench & Bar newsletter entitled “Justices Denied? Impact of the Judicial Districts Act on Incumbent Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate Court,” former ALA President Steven Pflaum and Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP summer associate Andrew Hamilton dissect the statutory and constitutional issues confronting Illinois justices who wish to run for retention but, due to redistricting by the JDA, no longer reside in the district to which they were previously elected.

Click here to read the article.

Justice Kathryn Zenoff of the Illinois Appellate Court, Second Judicial District, is seeking a judicial law clerk/secretary for an opening in early November in her chambers in Rockford, Illinois.  Remote with in-chambers-as-needed working arrangements considered.  The position offers an annual salary of $84,681 and an attractive judicial branch benefits package.

The judicial law clerk/secretary will conduct legal research and draft memoranda, orders, and opinions for the Justice.  Duties also include reviewing and editing the work of other clerks, and administrative duties.

The position requires graduation from an ABA-accredited law school.  Law Review/journal experience and prior experience as a judicial law clerk or appellate lawyer are strongly preferred, but all applicants with an outstanding academic record in core courses and superior research, analytical, and writing skills will be considered. 

Instructions on how to apply, as well as other details about the position, may be found here.

By:  Linda Sackey

In Wadsworth v. Kross, Lieberman & Stone, Inc., 2021 WL 3877930, at *1 (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed “a problem that has become familiar to our circuit: alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that have not caused the plaintiff any concrete harm.” Concluding that Article III prevented it from adjudicating such claims, the court reversed and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In September 2016, a healthcare research company hired plaintiff as a study manager responsible for developing clinical trials. The company offered plaintiff a $7,500 signing bonus, half of which would be payable after 30 days of employment and the other half would be payable after roughly six months’ employment. That said, the company provided that if plaintiff left her position or if it fired her for cause within 18 months of the second payment, she would have to repay the full bonus. Plaintiff agreed. In September 2017, after one year on the job, the company discharged her.

The following week, the company hired a debt-collection agency to retrieve the bonus payments. The agency mailed plaintiff a collection letter shortly after she was fired, and one of its employees called her by telephone four times in the weeks after that. Plaintiff sued the debt collection agency, arguing that its letter and phone calls violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA” or “the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The agency did not dispute her allegations about its conduct but argued that the Act was inapplicable because (1) the signing bonus was not a “debt” within the meaning of the Act, and (2) the agency was not acting as a “debt collector” under the Act because plaintiff’s debt was not in default at the time of the letter and phone calls. The district court rejected both arguments and entered summary judgment for plaintiff.

On the agency’s appeal, the Seventh Circuit found that plaintiff had not suffered a concrete injury traceable to the agency’s alleged violations of the Act; therefore, she lacked standing to sue. The court explained that to establish standing in federal court, a plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

On the first prong, the court noted that an injury must be concrete to be cognizable in federal court. In other words, it must be real, and not abstract. A plaintiff cannot establish standing simply by pointing to a procedural violation of a statute; instead, she must show that the violation harmed or presented an appreciable risk of harm to a concrete interest that Congress sought to protect.

In this case, the Seventh Circuit found that plaintiff had not established that the agency’s communications caused her any harm under the Act. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered personal humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, and emotional distress because of the agency’s conduct. The court concluded that anxiety and embarrassment were not injuries in fact. Rather, it determined that stress and embarrassment were “quintessential abstract harms” that were beyond its power to remedy.

The Seventh Circuit is seeking public comments on its proposal to rescind Circuit Rule 57.  That rule currently provides that a party who files a motion to modify a final judgment in the district court while an appeal is pending should request the district court to indicate whether it is inclined to grant the motion.  If the district court indicates that it is, then the Seventh Circuit "will remand the case for the purpose of modifying the judgment" and a party "dissatisfied with the judgment as modified must file a fresh notice of appeal."  

The Seventh Circuit has stated that it intends to rescind that rule because it conflicts with recently adopted Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1. 

Persons interested in submitting a public comment on the proposed rescission may e-mail them to mailto:USCA7_Clerk@ca7.uscourts.gov.  Or they can mail them to:  Advisory Committee on Circuit Rules c/o Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 219 South Dearborn Street, Room 2722, Chicago, IL 60604.

The Seventh Circuit's press release regarding the proposed rescission may be found here.

By:  Carson Griffis*

In Taylor v. Ways, Nos. 20-1410 & 20-1411, the Seventh Circuit clarified the scope of its jurisdiction when a party files an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity.  

Unlike most other defenses,  the denial of a qualified immunity defense may be immediately appealed by a defendant, but only to the extent the appeal  raises legal questions.  If the defendant's arguments are dependent on, and inseparable from, disputed facts, then the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction.  

In Taylor, the plaintiff sued three officials in the Cook County Sheriff's Office, alleging that he was fired because of his race.  At the summary judgment stage, the district court denied all three officials qualified immunity based on evidence that one of them had used a racial slur toward the plaintiff.

The officials filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity, and the plaintiff argued that the Seventh Circuit lacked jurisdiction.  Because some of the officials' arguments raised legal questions, the Seventh Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction, but not over every argument raised by the officials.  It concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over one official's argument that his actions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's termination because the facts over what caused the plaintiff's firing were disputed.  Given the conflicting evidence over whether that official had used a racial slur, the court held that it could not, as a matter of law, find that the official's alleged racial animus had no effect on the decision to terminate the plaintiff. 

The court left open the question of whether proximate cause, which is typically a factual issue, could ever be an appropriate subject for an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. 

*Carson Griffis is an Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Appeals Division of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General.  No comments made in this post are made on behalf of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, nor do they reflect the views or opinions of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General.

The Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, has adopted new rules of procedure which will become effective on September 1, 2021.  The new rules will replace all existing local rules currently in effect.

The Justices and court staff who worked on this project believe that the new rules will not only enable it to carry out its work more efficiently, but also answer procedural questions often asked by attorneys and litigants in a clear and concise manner.

The new rules are available here.

The Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court has announced that it will resume conducting in-person oral arguments in August 2021 at its Elgin courthouse.  The court clarified that it will entertain motions for an argument to be conducted remotely depending on an attorney's or party's particular circumstances. 

Additional information about the scheduling of August arguments will be included with the argument acknowledgment forms usually sent two weeks before an argument date.  Questions may be directed to the clerk's office at (847) 695-3750. 

The court's full press release on this topic may be found here.

By:  John M. Fitzgerald

In her acceptance speech at the 1954 Academy Awards, Audrey Hepburn told the audience, “I want to say thank you to everybody who in these past months and years have helped, guided and given me so much. I'm truly, truly grateful and terribly happy.”

I have very little in common with Audrey Hepburn, but as my term as ALA President reaches its conclusion, my feelings can be described much the same way.  The past year has had its share of challenges.  This marks the first, and hopefully last, bar year in which in-person meetings were not feasible.  But our officers, directors, committee co-chairs and members responded admirably.  We held a record number of events remotely, our members volunteered countless hours for our first-ever virtual Moot Court, and our members stuck with us notwithstanding a dramatic change to the way in which we meet and hold events.

Thank you for giving me this wonderful opportunity.  Serving as the President of the Appellate Lawyers Association has been a great honor and a joy.  I offer my best wishes to our new President, Scott Howie, and I am confident that he will be a great leader for our association.

At this moment, as we emerge from a once-in-a-century pandemic, I feel very proud to be a member of the ALA.  I am confident that the new slate of officers and directors will do outstanding things in the months and years ahead, and I look forward to seeing all of you at future ALA events

The Office of the Illinois Attorney General is currently accepting applications from experienced attorneys for Assistant Attorney General positions in its Civil and Criminal Appeals Divisions.  These positions offer ALA members the opportunity to brief and argue a wide variety of cases in state and federal reviewing courts in Illinois, including the Illinois Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  

Additional details about the Civil Appeals Division position and application process may be found here, and additional details about the Criminal Appeals Division position and application process may be found here.

On June 7, 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court entered an order delaying the transition to the new appellate court district boundaries recently enacted by the Illinois General Assembly.  Public Act 102-0011, which took effect on June 4, 2021, updated the boundaries of the Second through Fifth Districts of the Illinois Appellate Court.

In response, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered that "[a]ppeals and other matters shall continue to be filed in the judicial districts as they existed on June 3, 2021, until further order of the Court."  The court explained that the delay was necessary to faithfully execute the law's changes while ensuring continued access to justice and an orderly transition to the new boundaries. 

The text of Public Act 102-0011 may be found here.  A copy of the Illinois Supreme Court's order may be found here.