Background
Forty-seven members of the Illinois General Assembly sued the Speaker of the Illinois House and the President of the Illinois Senate after Senate Bill 328 passed in June 2025. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the bill’s final language was inserted through a House floor amendment that replaced the bill’s prior subject matter late in the legislative session.
The legislators contended that the resulting legislation was not read by title on three different days in each chamber, as required by the Illinois Constitution’s three-readings rule. The presiding officers certified that SB 328 had met the procedural requirements for passage. The Sangamon County circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding that the enrolled bill doctrine barred review and that plaintiffs lacked standing.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed. It held that binding Illinois Supreme Court precedent requires application of the enrolled bill doctrine: certification by the Speaker and Senate President conclusively establishes compliance with constitutional procedural requirements for enacting a bill and prevents judicial review of a three-readings challenge.
The court said it was bound by that precedent and therefore could not declare SB 328 unconstitutional, even if the three-readings rule had been violated. It did not decide whether the General Assembly actually complied with the rule. Because the enrolled bill doctrine resolved the case, the court found it unnecessary to address standing, which it noted is not jurisdictional in Illinois.
Key Takeaways
- Illinois appellate courts must follow the enrolled bill doctrine unless the Illinois Supreme Court changes it.
- Certification by legislative leaders forecloses judicial review of alleged violations of the three-readings rule.
- The court affirmed dismissal without deciding whether SB 328’s enactment actually complied with the constitutional requirement.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that challenges to the General Assembly’s internal bill-passage procedures face a conclusive barrier once legislative leaders certify compliance. Allegations that a bill was substantially altered and rapidly enacted do not permit an Illinois appellate court to examine a claimed three-readings violation under current Supreme Court precedent.
Although the court again expressed concern about potential legislative disregard of constitutional procedure, it made clear that any reconsideration of the enrolled bill doctrine must come from the Illinois Supreme Court.