That’s right, the long awaited Supreme Court opinion is due out Monday, July 11th at 9am. It can be viewed at http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Antic_Ops/2011/Antop071111.pdf

The Illinois Supreme Court announced that oral arguments for the Wirtz litigation will be heard on May 17, 2011. It is one of 12 cases that will be heard during the Court’s May term, which includes three days of arguments over a two-week period.

Many rumors are rampant about the prospects of Video Gaming and its likely hood of getting under way. Although it has been reported the Illinois Senate President John Cullerton has proposed a repeal of Video Gaming and replacing it with a tax on cigarettes. In fact, no official bill has been introduced as of yet or voted on. In fact, Cullerton says he will not deal with the Video Gaming issue in this video released by ILStatehouseNews.com:

The Illinois Attorney General has submitted an over 100 page brief addressing the ”Wirtz Litigation” to the Illinois Supreme Court on March 21, 2011. It appears that a majority of the leaders in Springifield believe the Appellate Courts ruling should be overturned.

Also, this letter was in the Chicago Tribune’s Voice of the People. It reflects the thoughts of many of us frustrated by those in the press taking pot shots at those wanting to be a part of the new Video Gaming Industry. Our compliments to Mr. Lattner.

The Illinois Supreme Court issued a stay in the challenge to the constitutionality of the Capital Spending Bill which includes the Video Gaming Act. In issuing a stay it allows the Illinois Gaming Board to continue working on rolling out video gaming. Under the stay, the Gaming Board will continue to promulgate regulations, accept applications, conduct background investigations, analyze bids for the central communication system and develop applications for licensed locations. This is a positive step for the industry as the state makes its argument for the constitutionality of the Bill.
The mostly Democratic Supreme Court will set a schedule to receive breifs and oral arguments in this matter. The issue will be whether the Bill violates the single subject requirement. The single subject requirement prohibits the joining of less favorable laws to popular laws. The Court will consider whether all of the acts are rationally related to a single subject matter and whether that subject matter is not too general.
The Court will look to see if all the acts are related to the raising of revenue to support paying the bonds used to capitalize the jobs bill. This is not a specific challenge to the constitutionality of video gaming.
It seems likely that the Court will find that all the acts are tied to supporting the repayment of the bonds used to pay for the jobs creation bill. The fact that the bill also established a study by the University of Illinois should not deter a finding supporting a single subject.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a motion for stay with the Illinois Supreme Court to keep the capital program alive for now. As you know already, an appellate panel declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the state Constitutions Single Subject Matter rule for legislation. The appellate court claimed that supporters of the law deemed the bill in question as being about “revenue,” when there was a whole lot more to the bill than just revenue.
As I told subscribers earlier this week, that reasoning seems more than a little silly. This was the capital bill. That’s how all the pieces fit together. And Madigan’s motion for stay points that out as well…
The State Parties have a substantial case on the merits. In Arangold, this Court upheld against a single subject challenge the State’s budget implementation act for fiscal year 1996, which contained a wide variety of statutory provisions creating and amending state programs and revenues in multiple acts, 187 Ill. 2d at 347-56. The State Parties argued below that the Capital Projects Acts were similarly related to a permissible single subject – the capital projects initiative – that was narrower in scope than implementation of a full years budget. (State Parties’ Br. at 28-33.) That argument clearly presents a substantial case on the merits.

An appellete court decision in Wirts v. Quinn et al. issued on January 26, 2011 stated that Public Act 96-34, (the “Act”) including the Video Gamin Act was unconstitutional. The Wirtz case was filed by plaintiffs W. Rockwell Wirtz and Wirtz Beverage Illinois. W. Rockwell (Rocky) Wirtz is the owner of the Chicago Blackhawks as well as the beverage distribution company that services our local area bars and restaurants, Judge and Dolph. Our local establishments contribute to the 1.5 billion dollars in annual sales the Wirtz Beverage Group boasts on their website.
The appellate court struck down the Act as unconstitutional because if found the Act violated the Illinois Constitution’s Single Subject Rule. The Rule requires that laws passed by the General Assembly must be confined to one subject. The appellate court held that the Act contained a variety of provisions that had “no natural and logical connection” to each other, and, therefore violated the Rule. The appellate court rejected the argument that all of these provisions have a logical connection to “revenue”.
The Attorney General for the State of Illinois will file an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. Once filed, the case is automatically stayed, meaning that the holding of the Wirtz Opinion will not be enforceable until the Illinois Supremem Court decides the case. The Illinois Supreme Court could quickly render a decision or a decision could take time. However, given the economic uncertainty Illinois currently faces as a result of the Wirtz Opinion, it is believe that it is certainly possible that the Illinois Supreme Court will render a decision quickly.

Many things are being reported about a “repeal of the gaming bill”. This article Appellate court guts Ill. public works program gives an excellent explanation of what transpired.
The article states there have already been bonds sold toward these projects, the primary funding of which is video gaming. This will go to the state Supreme Court quickly.