this case the plaintiff below challenge the constitutionality of section fifteen eighty six of the property tax code in the trial court there were cross motions for summary judgment in the intervenor the only hospital association the actual language of section fifteen eighty six requires the early department of revenue to issue a property tax exemption to a hospital applicant if the hospital applicant demonstrates that the value of certain services equals or exceeds the hospital's estimated property petition it shall i has to be examined before it would ever be concluded that it's mandatory the cases that talk about shall whether shall shall or doesn't mean sh mandatory vs directory issue that came up in the briefs are flawed for two reasons first in the trying to just of the statute first if you look at those cases those cases reports to grant a substitute of rights you're entitle me to a property tax exemption which is something under the constitution so the first way that we distinguish those mandatory versus directory cases is that there's not a single case that relates to procedure that's correct judge i think that's an important distinction that i think it's an even more important distinction in the context of a case like this a variety of statutory construction techniques or would we generally review this provision with other provisions i'm the same subject in the same statute yes but i don't think that you can comb through could read in conjunction with eighty six what about sixty five most respectfully no one and the reason i say that is because section fifteen eighty six doesn't refer to section fifty sixty five the separate statutes they stand on their own there's nothing in the statute that says to the department by the way you need to look at this other statute and that's how you should satisfy the constitutional  which had been included in the statute up primarily for use for charitable purposes would that make this constitutional yes and that's what he says if you had that language exclusively for charitable purposes it's constitutional so that's the only thing that's missing here i'm posing because it may not be nothing but i think that's an important thing in fact the critical thing that's missing had that language exclusively for charitable purposes been in there none of us would be here today he would be it literally who does all except maybe in this world amount for charity and that group would fit in with this statute if this statute declared unconstitutional what happens to  i think that they have said that but they have not told the record how to apply the test ok so is in existence that is the test but there's not any clarity and how we apply don't you're saying that's correct all and what the fourth district did which i thought was very smart was they went to the underpinnings and the underpinnings of the no set of circumstances test was a united states supreme court case and that case that the starting point is the playing text and meaning of the statue you can't jump to the no set of circumstances and ignore the plain text in meaning of the statute you have to look at the two set of circumstances tell us ok well that's what the fourth district set right but i did hear numerous illinois supreme court cases that suggest and that happened in any way question the fact that if they are the only way we can say this is facially unconstitutional is to say there is no set of circumstances under which this would be constitutional i think that the language that came up in the in the cases that you're talking exists but if you look carefully those cases do not perform any kind of analysis i'm not talking about cases i'm talking about the illinois supreme court are you saying they don't do any kind of an analysis they do not do a complete legislated in the in this provision of the code but at the same time that they could meet the constitutional requirement that they are principally in the up you know that their principal purpose is here i don't know if we were in the realm of fantasy i could only speculate and say perhaps it's possible still you think it's more of a fantasy to suggest that there were hospitals where there are hospitals flunk the course and factors ok but you're comparing maybe one of the largest hospitals around right in the state so what you're saying there's no other hospitals or affiliations just doesn't supply with what's the that they're there were there really a primarily or that their purpose was for here perhaps fantasy was a poor choice of words on my part but i do think for me to do anything just to speak to that issue in front of you would be speculation because there are some hospitals i'm familiar with like more sure and i think that if more sure were under scrutiny under the course and factors  but i i don't have the data and the record does not reflect data don't you have to show that in order to achieve facial facial unconstitutionality don't you have to do that is the s the o set of circumstances but i disagree with my interpretation of what the court is tony just in no set of circumstances test in other words i don't think i have to come forward and explain the hospital what the f district did was they approached it from a slightly different angle you looked at the statute and they said that the no set of circumstances test could ever be satisfied for two reasons the first was both that the word exclusively was missing from the statute and second that section fifteen needs six created this new ownership requirement in the hospital apple cans and that the hospital at the camp requirement would flunk the validly applied portion of the no set of circumstances test because there's never a circumstance where that is a constitutional before the supreme court and was argued in january oh she set out two thousand and seventeen based on what i typically see happen in the citizens i would guess there's a decision sometime stiction whether or not stance route is actually retroactive which the fourth district health didn't make you know to get where they want so the no set of circumstances not only did they have to examine jurisdiction but then they had to examine whether it was retroactive because if it wasn't rhetorical the appellate court had actually no reason to reach the constitutionality to say yes i agree with all your heart and every and i think all suggestion that perhaps there were too many frailties with that carl decision so that the court may not actually get to the constitutionality remembering the after i remember one of the justices asking questions  structure ok but i don't know how they're going to interpret that or thirty two without when it comes time to actually read the opinion anything further did you want to talk about the provisions you raised in the has a talk and everyone else is saying it's not a tough we think that ignores what the statute says you know we also think it just defies common sense at some point you have to employ so many statutory construction i facial challenges that the burden is on the challenger they have to show to the court there's no set of circumstances and you're basically saying that dead that's really not the test that this there's no hospital that would meet the test and that the fourth district had it right when they went to the underpinnings of the test and challenge it themselves where is the illinois supreme court has recently as you know a couple of months ago has steadfastly used that of the appellant and the and the person or the yes the yes the british l yes but i also believe it's problematic for the court because it's the know sort of simplest the know set of circumstances sounds very normal call it the no set of circumstances test and when you drill into the test it's a little more complex than they're sure but that it's always the bird person challenging the test to show to the court was to adopt the same position that the fourth district did and attack the language of the statute itself which is to false right you're being asked thank you had they interpreted the statute in which the legislature intended and they had to ensure to in the petition for leave to appeal language in the statute that the legislature the same subject and discuss the same subject is there anything flawed about that you know are yes you do have to read them together is my answer on any of the statute which is the term under subsection and the institutions of public charity that's the traditional intended to incorporate the cons to shill mandate for taxes i had nothing that i didn't see in the decision that this court issued i i agree with almost all of it on it actually well as ha the supreme court has held that the statute is valid i'd add to his list of three cases even itself as i mean there's two reasons the court decides the statute in even this constitution the first is before the world  furthermore in the decision the court is going through the mill says talks about how these exemptions statutes must be read in context and then suggest that the statute is constitutional in that case because they're reading it in context which is what we're argu pending re outcome of the illinois supreme court decision i don't know of any specific very good other than the fact that the court can retain jurisdiction but not ruling although there was a request to stay this decision early on that was by me  there's multiple cases in which the language of the constitution was missing from the statute and yet the supreme court determined that those statutes taxies the edges were constitution decision relied heavily on the mackenzie decision seems to just be a regurgitation of what mackenzie did was kind of an easy case because mackenzie had already been decided but the framework and the tax and  language in the statute at issue in mckenzie had a litany of examples and within one of those examples the magic word existed so you had the magic words who simply somewhere in that particular statute and it was on that basis in my opinion and i think the opinion that i disapproved of by the opinion that supreme court said now we can do we can say the constitutional criteria has been met it may have not been perfect  i think that the big problem with the argument that this is mandatory vs directory is that there are no consequences in the statute there's no repercussion there's nothing that directing th department of revenue i don't i don't follow that argument so mr especially i'm looking specifically at subsection c and so there are two consequences of subsection c meet the test get the the consequence of not meeting the test is you don't get the exemption and that's a consequence and that's another reason why the mandatory versus directory line of cases doesn't work in those mandatory applying fifteen eighty six bedroom doing as a mathematical test for comparing two numbers and metro falls apart all right well we certainly appreciate all the comments the arguments state by the lawyers really take this case under advisement and of course justice