IL Supreme Court Hearing

So about two weeks ago, there was an Hearing before the Illinois Supreme Court. We didn't follow it too closely because (duh) it doesn't effect us. Here's a summary a reader sent us:

• This is oral argument before an Illinois appellate court (or the Illinois Supreme Court) in case 132241, *Chicago John Dineen Lodge No. 7 v. City of Chicago*. The dispute arises from a 2023 Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) interest-arbitration award that set terms for the next collective bargaining agreement between the Chicago police union (Lodge 7) and the City.
  
  
  The award extended the longstanding right to private grievance arbitration (already available for lesser discipline) to the most serious cases—suspensions longer than 365 days and separations/discharge. Officers still have the option of the public Chicago Police Board process; the award does not change Police Board procedures. The City challenged two main aspects: (1) the requirement that arbitration of serious discipline be private (claiming it violates public policy favoring transparency and accountability), and (2) the requirement that officers remain in pay status while challenging serious discipline through arbitration (claiming it is arbitrary and capricious).
  
  
  Matt Pierce argued for the Lodge (appellant, seeking confirmation of the full DRB award). Aya Barnea (Ms. Barnea/Bernier) argued for the City (seeking affirmance of the appellate court’s ruling against private hearings and reversal on pay status so that portion of the award is vacated). The court took the case under advisement.

We're told that Mr Pierce pretty much gave a stellar performance and destroyed much of the City's arguments, which under normal circumstances, would result in a tremendous win for the Lodge (also from the email).

• Oral argument is not a final decision (the case was taken under advisement), so there is no formal winner. On the strength of the exchanges, the **Lodge (union) performed stronger**. The judges pressed the City hard on the foundations of its public-policy claim—whether Chicago’s local practice can create statewide policy, the lack of record evidence about other jurisdictions, the novelty and potential forfeiture of the First Amendment theory, the limited role of a consent decree, and the risk of disrupting settled private arbitration statewide. The Lodge’s statutory carve-outs, emphasis on deference, and consistency with decades of private labor arbitration appeared more tightly grounded in existing Illinois law. The City’s transparency and public-trust arguments are powerful as policy advocacy, but they faced steeper legal hurdles under the public-policy exceptions demanding standard. The pay-status issue received less sustained questioning and looked more like a classic “arbitrary and capricious” fight the City could still win or lose on the record. Overall, the Lodge left the stronger impression on the dispositive privacy/public-policy question. 

Unfortunately, Illinois is not "normal circumstances." Logic and sense don't usually exist here. Politics rules the day and distorts everything with its foul stench. 

You can hear the Court arguments here at this link. 

Amy opinions here one way or the other?