The Latest Breaking News from Illinois Supreme Court

The Illinois Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated opinion on the state’s biometric privacy law Friday, leaving the door open for massive damages when companies are found to violate residents’ privacy rights but suggesting lawmakers revisit the issue.

They contend the controversial law, which would eliminate cash bail in Illinois, is unconditional and improperly ties judge’s hands when deciding the conditions of release for people accused of crimes.

With Americans’ trust in the Supreme Court at an all-time low, the nine justices in Washington ought to take a look at how Illinois does things.

At a rate of one every four days, a new legal challenge has arisen to Illinois' month-old ban on semiautomatic weapons

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Seeking to build on the successes of his four years in office, Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker offered a second-term agenda Monday that called for a state constitutional right to abortion, making preschool available to every family and making public college free for children in working-class families.

The Illinois Supreme Court won’t hear oral arguments until March, and then the Court has to write its opinion(s). A poll found that 32% of voters had a favorable view of the SAFE-T Act, which included the elimination of cash bail, while 40% had an unfavorable view.

The court is scheduled to hear legal challenges during its March term. The schedule does not give a date for the justices to issue a ruling.

The issue is not what the states attorneys want, the defendants want, the defense bar wants or the Legislature wants.

The Illinois Supreme Court order to maintain the status quo is a setback, but the state should continue on the road to a fairer criminal justice system.

CHICAGO — Just hours before the elimination of cash bail and other pretrial policies were supposed to go into effect, the Illinois Supreme Court on Saturday halted the implementation of the landmark policies statewide.

The justices issued their order Saturday evening to maintain the status quo across the state while they review the new law’s constitutionality.