Skip to content
The COVID Project
  1. Library
  2. Standing duties: Illinois
  3. DUT-IL-010

Ex. DUT-IL-010 Standing duty Primary source read

Fox Fire Tavern, LLC v. Pritzker, 2020 IL App (2d) 200623

Reversal of a temporary restraining order against Executive Order 2020-61; the IEMA Act plainly authorizes successive disaster proclamations; the regional order prescribed guidelines restaurants must follow to operate and was not a closure or quarantine order under the DPH Act

Illinois Appellate Court, Second District (Justice Zenoff, with Justices Hutchinson and Brennan) · Illinois (Appellate Court, Second District) (Court)

The COVID Project

The record

Jurisdiction
Illinois (Appellate Court, Second District) · Illinois
Level
Court
Authority
Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(d) (interlocutory appeal from a TRO); 20 ILCS 3305/7; 20 ILCS 2305/2
Issued
2020-11-13 Nov. 13, 2020
Effective
2020-11-13 (opinion filed) (read as 2020-11-13)
End
n/a (final) (read as 2021-09-30)
In force
Nov. 13, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2021
Quarters
2020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3
Limitation types
Business closureCapacity limitAlcohol and barsOther
Addressees
  • restaurants and bars in the mitigation regions; by its reasoning, every business operating under the executive orders
Character
adjudication
Collection
Standing duties: Illinois DUT-IL

Operative words

Because the Act plainly authorizes the Governor to issue successive disaster proclamations stemming from one ongoing disaster, the trial court abused its discretion in finding that FoxFire established a likelihood of success on the merits.... EO61 prescribed guidelines that restaurants must follow to safely operate while a region's positivity rates exceed state guidelines.

Penalty

n/a (judicial decision confirming the binding force of the orders)

What it required

Held that section 7 of the IEMA Act authorizes successive thirty-day disaster proclamations arising from one ongoing disaster (¶¶ 24-26, 36), that EO 2020-61's suspension of indoor dining in Region 8 was a set of operating conditions restaurants 'must follow' and not a quarantine, isolation or business-closure order requiring the DPH Act's consent-or-court-order procedure (¶¶ 40-41), and reversed the Kane County TRO. Character as recorded: adjudication (order_operating_condition layer).

Retrieval note

The court cited Cassell v. Snyders, 458 F. Supp. 3d 981, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2020), for the proposition that gathering restrictions are not quarantine, isolation or closure orders (¶ 41). The opinion quotes 20 ILCS 3305/7 and 20 ILCS 2305/2(b)-(c) as they read in the 2018 compilation, which corroborates that the texts saved as DUT-IL-001 and DUT-IL-002 are the texts in force in 2020.