Legal Ruling

Peace Scholar Detained by 

ICE For Speech Ordered Released

    RICHMOND, Va. – (ACLU) -- 7/24/26 -- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today (7/23) rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to re-detain Georgetown scholar Dr. Badar Khan Suri and affirmed a lower court order that required the government to release him on bail as his case proceeded. The court also rejected the government’s request to move the case from Virginia to Texas.

    “[In] our view,” the court wrote, “denying judicial review of detention claims like Suri’s misreads Congress’ statutes and undermines the protections guaranteed all persons on American soil by the writ of habeas corpus.”

    The court later expanded: “[An] unbroken line of caselaw also accords with common sense: if a noncitizen is challenging their detention pending removal, then waiting for their removal proceedings does them no good. They have already been detained, allegedly in violation of the Constitution. This ‘absurd’ reading of the INA would make such detention claims ‘effectively unreviewable,’ and the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to embrace it.”

    In March 2025, ICE arrested and detained Dr. Suri, a lawful visa holder from India whose wife is a U.S. citizen, outside his Virginia home in retaliation for his associations and speech in support of Palestinian rights. Dr. Suri was detained for nearly six weeks over a thousand miles away from his wife and children at an infamous private detention center in Texas known for its human rights abuses. A federal judge ordered his release from detention in May 2025 while his case continued in federal court.

    “Today reaffirms my faith that an independent judiciary remains the truest guardian of liberty, due process, and the rule of law. I am profoundly grateful to the judges who upheld these constitutional principles and gave my case the careful, deliberate consideration it deserved,” said Dr. Badar Khan Suri. “I remain, as ever, committed to the pursuit of justice through lawful and peaceful means. We should remember that a democracy without an accessible writ of habeas corpus is a democracy in name only; as the honorable court so aptly observed, the scope of habeas corpus ‘must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.’ I am proud of those who fought for me, and I am proud of every moment of life. Be courageous and stand for justice. Free Palestine.”

    On appeal, the Trump administration argued that federal district courts don’t have the authority to review the constitutionality of Dr. Suri’s detention until the Department of Justice-controlled immigration process, which can take months or even years, is completed. The administration also argued that because it quickly swept Dr. Suri out of Virginia without notice to his family or lawyers, the Virginia court does not have jurisdiction to hear his petition, and that it should be handled by a court in Texas, where it chose to take him.

    Today, a panel of judges from the Fourth Circuit rejected both arguments 2-1, finding that federal courts must be able to review constitutional claims stemming from immigration detention, and that his case should stay in Virginia.

    “We are elated that Dr. Suri will remain free with his family and we are grateful that the court has seen through the government's brazen attempts to silence pro-Palestine speech,” said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The federal government cannot do an end run around the First Amendment by locking people up for their speech and denying them their day in court. Immigration laws cannot be abused to silence dissent, and we are grateful that today, justice prevailed.”

    This ruling is the third opinion from a federal court of appeals addressing the question of whether the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bars immediate federal court review of a noncitizen’s claim of unlawful detention in retaliation for their speech. In January, the Third Circuit ruled against Mahmoud Khalil, holding that the INA does bar such claims. And just two days ago, the Second Circuit ruled against Mohsen Mahdawi, agreeing with the Third Circuit’s analysis. Addressing the Khalil v. Trump decision, the Fourth Circuit was clear: “We disagree.”

    “We are gratified that the court recognized the basic principle that the government cannot escape judicial review of their patently unconstitutional actions — here, arresting Dr. Khan Suri, transferring him far away from his family and community, and detaining and attempting to deport him for nothing more than his associations and constitutionally protected advocacy for Palestinian rights,” said Astha Sharma Pokharel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

    Similar to the cases of Mr. Khalil, Mr. Mahdawi, and other students, Dr. Suri was arrested in retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights. He was additionally targeted because of his U.S. citizen wife’s speech, her Palestinian origins, and her familial ties. On social media, Dr. Suri criticized U.S. support of Israel’s assault on Gaza, motivated by the time he spent volunteering in Gaza and fear for his wife’s family members who still lived there with no way to flee during the war. The administration has falsely argued that Dr. Suri’s presence in the United States “compromised a compelling foreign policy interest” and therefore, under a rarely used section of the INA, it had the right to deport him. Dr. Suri’s immigration court proceedings remain ongoing.

    “ICE abducted Dr. Khan Suri from his home in Virginia before moving him among five different ICE facilities across three states in a shameless attempt to find a court that would be friendlier to his unlawful detention,” said ACLU-VA Legal Director Eden Heilman. “We are elated that the Fourth Circuit saw through the Trump administration’s blatant attempt to bend the law to their will and rejected their bid to re-detain our client thousands of miles away from his family in Virginia. The First Amendment protects all of us — regardless of citizenship — and we will continue to fight for his constitutional rights.”

    Dr. Suri is represented in his federal lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Van Der Hout LLP.

    The opinion can be read here.

Law and Justice

Appeals Court Rejects ICE 

Policy of Mandatory 

Detention Without Bond

    DENVER — (ACLU) -- 7/5/26 -- The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Trump administration policy on Tuesday, June 30, that mandated the detention of Rigoberto Santillan-Quiroz, a longtime U.S. resident, without bond. The court ordered a bond hearing for Santillan-Quiroz, who, after eight months of detention, will finally have an opportunity to demonstrate that there is no justification for his continued detention. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling joins three appeals courts and decisions from over 450 district court judges across the country. Judges have mandated that the Trump administration release many of these immigrants from detention, routinely finding that their categorical detention without a bond hearing is unlawful.

    “Every person has rights protected by the Constitution, no matter the color of our skin, the languages we speak, or our immigration status,” said Travis Handler, ACLU of Oklahoma legal fellow. “With this order, the court unanimously found that all people residing within the Tenth Circuit who are detained by ICE are entitled to a bond hearing and, absent special circumstances, are eligible for release on bond. This is a huge step toward ending the mass deportation machine. We will continue to hold this administration accountable and fight for the safety of our communities.”

    Santillan-Quiroz has lived in the U.S. for about twenty years, is married to a legal permanent resident, and has a U.S. citizen stepdaughter. He was detained in November 2025 after a traffic stop and held without bond per the Trump administration’s new policy, despite not being a flight risk nor a danger to public safety. Santillan-Quiroz filed a habeas petition seeking his release. A magistrate judge recommended a bond hearing and his release, but an Oklahoma district court ultimately denied his habeas petition. Santillan-Quiroz, with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, ACLU of Oklahoma, ACLU of Colorado, and immigration attorney Kelli Stump appealed the district court’s decision in January 2026.

    "This is a huge victory for thousands of people currently being held without access to bond in immigration detention centers across Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. These individuals are now entitled to have the bond hearings that should result in release for many after months of being wrongfully held by ICE,” said Tim Macdonald, ACLU of Colorado legal director. “This ruling from the Tenth Circuit sends a message that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally change the law and create unlawful policies that violate the rights of immigrants in our country and deny them fundamental fairness and due process.”

    In July 2025, the Trump administration issued new guidance that denies bond to people in detention while their immigration cases proceed in court, impacting millions of people in the country. This new guidance defies longstanding Department of Homeland Security (DHS) practices, federal law, and fundamental due process protections. It also exacerbates longstanding problems with immigration detention, including overcrowding, medical neglect, inadequate nutrition, and more.

    “The courts have once again correctly rejected the government’s attempt at rewriting our immigration laws to categorically deny immigrants like Mr. Santillan-Quiroz their right to basic review of their detention,” said My Khanh Ngo, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the appeal. “This order checks that executive overreach and we are thrilled that our client will finally have the chance to be reunited with his family.”

    "Immigration detention is intended to ensure appearance at proceedings — not to impose punishment before a case is decided," said Kelli Stump, Santillan-Quiroz' initial habeas attorney and co-immigration counsel. "The Tenth Circuit's decision recognizes that liberty cannot depend on a blanket policy. Every person deserves an individualized determination based on the law and the facts, and that is exactly what Congress required."

First Amendment Rights

Woman Fights 4-Year Prison 

Sentence for Black Lives Matter Protest

ACLU of South Carolina Has Represented Martin Since 2023

    COLUMBIA, S.C. (ACLU) — 7/15/2025 — A South Carolina woman who received a 4-year prison sentence for participating in a Black Lives Matter protest during the summer of 2020 is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case.

    Brittany Martin is a Black woman, mother, chef, and activist who joined protests in Sumter following the May 2020 police murder of George Floyd. Local police arrested her after five days of nonviolent protest, and she was convicted of the South Carolina state crime of “breach of peace of a high and aggravated nature.” She was sentenced to four years in state prison. She was pregnant at the time of her conviction and gave birth to her daughter, Blessing, while incarcerated, prompting nationwide outrage and shows of solidarity. On Friday, July 11, Ms. Martin filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

    “I am praying that this case be overturned. This is a battle to exercise and uphold our constitutional rights,” said Brittany Martin. “They’ve got to give us some justice and let us know that we still have our First Amendment right to freedom of speech in this country. My case would be the perfect example of that.”

    The ACLU of South Carolina has represented Ms. Martin since April 2023, arguing that Ms. Martin’s conviction for engaging in non-violent protest violated the First Amendment and that her four-year prison sentence for that illegal conviction was an outrage. The South Carolina Department of Corrections released Ms. Martin on November 27, 2024. She remains committed to fighting for justice in the courts and in her community.

    “South Carolina’s conviction of Brittany Martin is yet another moment in a long and shameful history of the State using criminal enforcement to silence dissent. In multiple 1960s Civil Rights-Era cases, the Supreme Court had to intervene to correct South Carolina’s unconstitutional actions, and we have asked that it do so again here,” said Meredith McPhail, staff attorney for the ACLU of South Carolina.

    The South Carolina Court of Appeals refused to consider Ms. Martin’s First Amendment arguments on appeal, ruling that they were not properly raised at trial. The petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of Ms. Martin’s case and to clarify that procedural rules—like the one invoked by the SC Court of Appeals—cannot excuse state appellate courts from conducting the careful, independent review that the Supreme Court has long required in First Amendment cases. The court will now decide whether to take up the case.

    “Courts play a critical constitutional role in protecting individuals who express viewpoints that are unpopular with government officials and majority sentiment,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “In 1963, the Supreme Court stepped in to protect the First Amendment rights of Black civil rights protesters who were prosecuted and convicted in South Carolina for the same offense, for doing what Brittany Martin did in 2020. It’s time for the Supreme Court to reinforce the courts’ role in protecting freedom of speech.”

    The petition highlights a lack of consistency in how different state courts decide whether to review constitutional facts in First Amendment cases like Ms. Martin’s. Because juries tend to reflect local majority opinions, courts have long held that independent appellate review is necessary to protect unpopular speech.

    The arguments in this petition rely on a long record of court cases upholding the right to protest, including the landmark 1963 case Edwards v. South Carolina, which overturned the criminal conviction of Black students who were arrested on a breach of peace charge after refusing to disperse from a protest.

    For more information and previous filings in Brittany Martin’s case, see the ACLU-SC case page for The State v. Brittany Martin.

The Rule of Law

 Multiple Plaintiffs File Lawsuit To Block

Bible Mandate in Oklahoma Schools

    OKLAHOMA - (FFRF) - 10/17/2024 - More than 30 Oklahomans recently filed a lawsuit urging the Oklahoma Supreme Court to block state Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters’ mandate that all public schools incorporate the bible into their curricula. The lawsuit, Rev. Lori Walke v. Ryan Walters, also asks the court to stop the state from spending millions of taxpayer dollars on bibles to support the mandate.

    The 32 plaintiffs include 14 public school parents, four public school teachers and three faith leaders who object to Walters’ extremist agenda that imposes his personal religious beliefs on other people’s children — in violation of Oklahomans’ religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The plaintiffs come from a variety of faith traditions, and some identify as atheist, agnostic or nonreligious. Some are of Indigenous heritage, and some have family situations — such as LGBTQ-plus members or children with special educational needs — that cause particular concerns around teaching the bible in public schools, especially around bullying. The plaintiffs are represented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice.

    Walters issued a June 27 mandate unilaterally requiring every public school in Oklahoma to “incorporate the Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments,” into the curriculum for grades 5-12, an abuse of power that ignored state laws. Walters then fast-tracked plans to spend $3 million of taxpayer money on an expensive, Christian nationalist version of the King James Bible that includes the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Pledge of Allegiance and Bill of Rights, another abuse of power and gross violation of Oklahoma taxpayers’ religious freedom. Walters wants to spend another $3 million on bibles next year.

    The lawsuit asserts that the bible-education mandate violates the Oklahoma Constitution’s religious freedom protections because the government is spending public money to support religion, as well as favoring one religion over others by requiring the use of a Protestant version of the bible. The mandate also violates the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act and other state statutes because officials did not follow required rules for implementing new policies and for spending public money.

    “Superintendent Ryan Walters cannot be allowed to employ the machinery of the state to indoctrinate Oklahoma’s students in his religion,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “Thankfully, Oklahoma law protects families and taxpayers from his unconstitutional scheme to force public schools to adopt his preferred holy book.”

    Plaintiff Erika Wright of Cleveland County, the founder and leader of the Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition and a parent of two children who attend public schools, said: “As parents, my husband and I have sole responsibility to decide how and when our children learn about the Bible and religious teachings. We are devout Christians, but different Christian denominations have different theological beliefs and practices. It is not the role of any politician or public school official to intervene in these personal matters. Oklahoma’s education system is already struggling, ranking nearly last in national standings. Mandating a Bible curriculum will not address our educational shortcomings. Superintendent Walters should focus on providing our children and teachers with the resources they need; our families can handle religious education at home.”

    Plaintiff Rev. Lori Walke, senior minister of Mayflower Congregational United Church of Christ in Oklahoma City, stated: “I am a faith leader who cares deeply about our country’s promise of religious freedom and ensuring that everyone is able to choose their own spiritual path. The state mandating that one particular religious text be taught in our schools violates the religious freedom of parents and children, teachers, and taxpayers. The government has no business weighing in on such theological decisions. I’m proud to join this lawsuit because I believe Superintendent Walters’ plan to use taxpayer money to buy Bibles and force public schools to teach from them is illegal and unconstitutional.”

    Plaintiff Rev. Mitch Randall of Cleveland County, a Baptist pastor and CEO of Good Faith Media, said: “As a Christian, I’m appalled by the use of the Bible — a sacred text — for Superintendent Walters’ political grandstanding. As a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, I’m alarmed by the parallels between this Bible mandate and the religious proselytization and forced assimilation my relatives faced in government boarding schools. As a taxpayer, I object to the state spending public funds on religious texts. The separation of church and state is a bedrock principle protecting religious liberty for every citizen; I urge the court to uphold this principle and strike down this mandate.”

    Colleen McCarty, executive director of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, stated: “The constant use of Oklahoma as a testing ground for religious extremism is growing tiresome. Oklahoma families deserve a public school system devoted to the education of their children, and instead we get flash-bulb political stunts and attempted erosion of the Constitution. The buck stops here. We will defend the principles our nation is built on, starting with the separation of church and state.”

    Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United, remarked: “The separation of church and state guarantees that families and students — not politicians — get to decide if, when and how to engage with religion. Superintendent Ryan Walters is abusing the power of his office to advance a Christian nationalist agenda and impose his personal religious beliefs on other people’s children. Not on our watch. We’re proud to defend the religious freedom of all Oklahomans, from Christians to the nonreligious.”

    Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, stated:  “This Bible mandate is a blatant power grab that violates state law and tramples the separation of church and state. Public-school students, families, and teachers — and the taxpayers who support them — deserve better.”

    Tamya Cox-Touré, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, said: “By filing this lawsuit, Oklahomans have come together in a common fight to reject the State Board of Education’s use of religion as a cover for repression. All families and students should feel welcome in our public schools and we must protect the individual right of students and families to choose their own faith or no faith at all. The separation of church and state is a bedrock of our nation’s founding principles.”

    The defendants in the lawsuit are Walters; the Oklahoma State Department of Education; the Oklahoma State Board of Education and its five members, Donald Burdick, Sarah Lepak, Katie Quebedeaux, Zachary Archer and Kendra Wesson; and the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services, its Executive Director Rick Rose, State Purchasing Director Amanda Otis and Contracting Officer Brenda Hansel.

    The attorneys and legal staff on the team representing the plaintiffs include Patrick Elliott and Samuel Grover at FFRF; Alex J. Luchenitser, Luke Anderson, Scott Lowder and Jess Zalph at Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver at the ACLU; Megan Lambert at the ACLU of Oklahoma; and Colleen McCarty and Leslie Briggs at Oklahoma Appleseed.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national educational nonprofit that protects the constitutional separation between state and church and educates about nontheism. Founded in 1947, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious freedom advocacy organization that educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. The ACLU of Oklahoma works to secure liberty, justice, and equity for all Oklahomans through advocacy, litigation and legislation, leading by example and fueled by people power. For more than 100 years, the ACLU has worked in courts, legislatures and communities to protect the constitutional rights of all people. With a nationwide network of offices and millions of members and supporters, the ACLU takes on the toughest civil liberties fights in pursuit of liberty and justice for all. Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice is a 501(c)3 public interest law firm that fights for the rights and opportunities of every Oklahoman.

Law and Justice

NARAL Calls Supreme Court Draft

 Opinion on Roe v. Wade

 Shocking, Without Precedent

    (NARAL) - 5/4/2022 - Following reports that a majority of Supreme Court justices are planning to strike down Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortion in the coming months, NARAL Pro-Choice America Mini Timmaraju released the following statement:

    “This is the most ominous and alarming sign yet that our nation’s highest court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion as we know it and ripping away our freedom to decide if, when, and how to raise our families. While this is a draft opinion and abortion is still legal, we need to brace for a future where more and more people are punished and criminalized for seeking and providing abortion care. Now more than ever, we must support those working to provide abortion care and elect champions who will relentlessly fight for reproductive freedom and take bold action to safeguard abortion rights.”

    The court's shocking and unprecedented leak follows multiple other signals that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade case that recognized the constitutional right to abortion. Meanwhile, abortion care is already almost entirely out of reach in Texas because a vigilante-enforced law banning abortion as early as six weeks of pregnancy rendered Roe meaningless in the state. Other states are clamoring to follow Texas’ lead even before the Supreme Court announces its opinion in the Jackson Women’s Health case.

    Should Roe fall, 28 states are poised to take action to prohibit abortion outright. Of those, 13 states already have “trigger bans” in place, which would ban abortion automatically if Roe is overturned. These bans and attacks on abortion access fall hardest on those most marginalized, including people of color, LGBTQ people, people with low incomes, and those in rural communities.

Voting Rights

Groups Urge Lawmakers to Protect,

Not Restrict, Voting Rights

By Lily Bohlke
Producer / PNS 

------------------------

 

    INDIANAPOLIS - (PNS) - 8/4/2021 - Voting-rights advocates applauded a recent federal appeals-court decision to prevent Indiana from purging some voters from the rolls without notifying them first. However, they said there is more work to do to ensure everyone has access to a ballot.

    Two Indiana state laws, Senate Bill 442 in 2017 and Senate Bill 334 in 2020, aimed to remove a voter's registration if it appears they'd registered in another state.

    Barbara Bolling-Williams, Indiana state conference president for the NAACP, said neither held up in court, because they violated the National Voter Registration Act.

    "The federal act requires that there is contact with the voter, you know, to say, 'It appears that you're registered in Ohio, is that you? Have you moved to Ohio; are you no longer going to be registered to vote here in Indiana?'" Bolling-Williams explained.

    If a voter does not respond, officials need to give notice that the person is set to be removed from the rolls, and then wait two federal election periods.

    Bolling-Williams pointed out other policies, like same-day registration, have increased access in other states, but Indiana's voter registration period ends 30 days before Election Day.

    Legal battles around voter purges and other laws to restrict voting access, especially for historically marginalized communities, are not unique to Indiana.

    As of July 14, 18 states had passed 30 laws in 2021 alone, making it harder to vote, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Proponents argued they are meant to prevent fraud, but Bolling-Williams countered lawmakers are not taking voters' needs into account.

    "In this climate of not wanting people to vote, basically, we understand that if everybody has an opportunity to vote, then the will of the people will reign, and not the dictatorship of a few," Bolling-Williams contended.

    Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Sen Todd Young, R-Ind., were among those who blocked federal legislation, the "For the People Act," which would have prevented many of the new, more restrictive state laws from going into effect.

 

References:

Court ruling 7th Circuit Court of Appeals 07/19/2021
Senate Bill 442 (2017) 04/13/2017
National Voter Registration Act U.S. Dept. of Justice 05/20/1993
Voter registration rules Ind. Sec'y of State 2021
Voting laws information Brennan Center for Justice 07/22/2021 

For the People Act 2021
Senate Bill 334 (2020) Statehouse website 03/21/2020

Story credit: Public News Service. Originally published on 7/23/2021

 

Repeal of Construction Plan Worries Lawmakers

   By Diane S.W. Lee and Melissa Leu - (Illinois Statehouse News) - 1/30/2011 - Illinois state construction and building projects may be in for a long haul.

   An Illinois Appellate Court on Jan. 26 threw out the state’s multi-year, $31 billion capital program, leaving local lawmakers concerned.
   In addition to funding construction projects, Public Act 96-34 legalized video gaming in certain establishments, allowed for privatization of the state’s lottery, hiked taxes on such items as beverages and candy and increased liquor taxes. The court ruled that it was “void in its entirety.”

   W. Rockwell Wirtz, president of the Chicago-based alcohol wholesaler Wirtz Beverage Illinois, brought the case to the appeals court, alleging it violated the Illinois Constitution’s single subject rule.

   The single subject rule, also called the “uniformity clause,” requires that legislation dealing with appropriations be limited to one subject.

    One Illinois lawmaker flat out disagreed with the ruling.

   “I think the courts have this wrong. It’s clearly a single subject,” Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-Moline, said. “The single subject is raising capital for the state, so the state can move forward on economic development projects.”

   Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford, said “Nothing is going to change in the end. I think the court is just saying their interpretation is that we need to follow a stricter single-subject rule.”

   The capital program was a major initiative of Gov. Pat Quinn’s first year in office, aimed at creating jobs and investing in the state’s infrastructure.

   State Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington, said he was disappointed with the court’s ruling on a measure he called a “jobs bill.”

   “When you now say that the funding in the legislation itself is unconstitutional, you put a choke hold on those jobs and the state and the economy,” Brady said. “This whole jobs bill … was directed to stimulate the economic engine of the state of Illinois and put people back to work in this high unemployment time.”

   The Illinois Attorney General’s office plans on filing an appeal and a motion for an immediate stay on Thursday, spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler said. A stay will allow the program to continue as usual.

   Quinn appeared to be hoping for the best.

   “We would expect the Supreme Court to rule on the request for a stay in the very near future,” Quinn said in a written statement released Wednesday.

   The Legislature now faces two options — wait for the Supreme Court’s decision or break down the measure into smaller components and pass the plan separately when both chambers reconvene on Feb. 2.

   If that doesn’t work, lawmakers will need to look for a different funding source for capital projects, Rep. Jil Tracy, R-Mt. Sterling, said.
   “There [are] challenges — because there are different players of this General Assembly — but I’ve got to believe that across party lines, and across geographic lines, and everything else, we recognize that Illinois has got a crumbling infrastructure that so desperately needs attention,” Tracy said.

   But the clock is ticking.

   “We’re anticipating a spring construction season with projects that are being funded by this capital bill,” Brady said. “And that is of great concern to me, that there is now a roadblock that has been thrown up to move forward with this very needed jobs bill in the state.”

   Capital projects already in progress are expected to continue as scheduled, which is a relief to one southern Illinois lawmaker.

   “You got a real asset,” Sen. John Jones, R-Mount Vernon, said. “The governor has some discretionary movement around here, so he can use money out of his own revenue fund to keep the capital bill moving forward.”

   Jacobs echoed that concern.
   “Clearly raising revenue is never easy,” Jacobs said.

   Note: originally published Jan. 26, 2011. Story courtesy of Illinois Statehouse News.