## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 E M PRESS C A S I NO J OLIE T C ORPO RA T I ON, an Il lin ois co rp or at ion, et a l., Plai nt i f f s -Appe l l ants (N o. 09

- 3975 ) P laint if fs -App el le es (No. 10-1019 ),
v. R OD R. B LA GOJ EV I CH, D ef endant-Appellant (No. 10-1019 ),
an d B ALMO RAL R ACI NG C LU B , I NC ., M AY WOOD P AR K T R OT T I NG A S S OC I A T I ON, I NC ., A RLI NGT ON P AR K R AC EC O URSE , LLC , F AIRMO UNT P ARK, I NC ., an d H AWTHORNE R ACE C O URSE , I NC ., D ef endants-A ppell ee s (No. 09-3975 ).

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:09- cv-03585

—MatthewF. Kenn elly, Judge .
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 23, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 2, 20112 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

O perati ng in various locat ions i n Il li nois , t h e riverboat 1 cas inos are: Em press Casi no J oli et Co rporati on; D es Plai nes De ve l op m e ntLP ( do i ng bu s i ne s s a s Har r a h’ s Ca s i no Cruise s J oli et) ; H oll yw ood Casi no-Au ro ra, I nc. ; and E lgi n R iverboat R e so rt-R iv erb oa t C asin o (d oin g b u siness as G ran d V ictor ia C a sin o ). W e r efe r t o th em co lle ct iv el y as “t h e c a sin o s.” Jo h n sto n ’s h o rs e-r a ci n g tr a ck s a re B a lm o ra l R a ci n g C lu b , In c., 2 and M ayw ood P a rk T rott ing Assoc iat ion, Inc
. ; the other s are Arl i ng t on Par k Rac ec our s e LLC; Fa i rm ountPa rk, I nc . ; an d H aw tho rn e R ace C ou rse, Inc. W e refer to th em collectiv ely as “the race tr acks” unles s the contex t r equire s otherwise
. Befo re B AUER, P OSNER, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Thi s ci vi l r acke tee ring s uithas som e f actualo ver l ap w i th the federa l pro secuti on o f f o r m erI l l i no i s Gov erno r Ro d Bl ag oj ev i ch, no w awai ting r e t r i a l o n v a r i o us c r i mi na l c o un t s tha t we r e t r i ed l ast sum m erbut re sul ted i n a hun g j u ry. Fo ur r i verboat c a s i n o s c l a i m th e y a r e v i c t i ms o fa p a y - t o - p l a y s c h e me engi neer ed b y B l agoj evi ch and J ohn J ohnsto n, the own er of tw o I l l i noi s ho rs e- ra ci ng tr acks
. The cas i nos al l ege 1 that Blag oj evi ch “sol d” and Jo hnston “ bought” the enactm ent o ftwo I l l i nois gam i ng l aw s r equi ring the m to pay 3% o fthei r adj usted gr oss rev en ue i nto a “ H or se R ac in g E q u ity T ru st F u n d ” as a c on d itio n of th eir g ami ngl i ce ns es . The pr o ce eds ofthi s fund g o no t to the S ta te o fI l l i no i s o r t o a ny s ta te pr o g r am o r s ervic e but i ns te ad ar e pai d di r ec tly t o a s m al l group ofc o m pet i ng gam bl i ng ent er pri ses : fi ve Il l i noi s ho rs e- ra ci ng tr acks , in c lu d in g t h e t w o ow n ed by Joh n st on . T h e d et ails of th is 2 schem e are l ar gel y der i ved fro m the federa l cr i m i nalN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 3

Coun t I a l l eg es vi ol at i ons ofthe Rac ke t ee r I nfl uen c ed a nd 3 Co rrupt O rganizat ions Act, 18 U.S
. C . § 1 962( c) , ( d). Cou nt I I s ee ks a c om m on- l aw co ns t ru c t i ve t ru s tove r the pr oc ee ds of the R ICO cons piracy al le ged i n Cou nt I
. com pla i nt thatl ed to Bl agoj ev ich ’ s r em ova l fro m o ffi ce i n J a nu a r y 2 0 0 9 a nd a n i nd i c t men tl a t e r r e t urne d a g ai nst hi m . W hi l e thi s case has been pend i ng , th e casi nos have conti nued to pay i nto the fund ( m or e than $10 0 m i l l i on a nd c ou n ting), but the m oneyi s fro zen o n release and held i n escrow un d er th e term s of a tem p orary re str ai ni ng o rderput i n pla ce b y the di str i ct c ourt
. Th e c a s i no s ’ c o mpl a i nth a s t wo co unts : ( 1 ) a R I COc o n s p i r a c y c l a i m a g a i n s tB l a g oj e v i c h, h i s c a mp a i g n c o mm i tt ee “ F r i en ds o fBl ag oj ev i ch, ” J o hns ton, a nd the tw o ra cetr ac ks he o w ns; and ( 2) a const ructi ve- tr ust c laim ag ain st all five rac et ra c k s a s b en efic iar ies of th e illgot ten g ai ns o fthe conspi ra cy. T he defendants m ove d 3 to dism i ss on m ult i ple gr ou nd s, and the casinos soughta prel i m i naryi nj uncti on t o m ai ntai n the escr ow . Each s i de pr e v a i l e d in pa r t
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tl e ftthe R I CO cl ai m s t a nd i ng a nd a l s o r ej e c t e d Bl a g oj e v i c h’ s c l a i m of legi sl ati ve i m m unity. But the cour t a ccepted the r acetr ac k s’ a r g um en t th atthe c as i no s ur ch ar g e i s a ta x a nd ther ef or e the Tax Inj uncti on A ct, 28 U
. S. C. § 1 341, bl ock ed the c ourt ’ s j uri sdic ti on t o i m pose a co nstructi ve tr ust. T h e c o u r tth e n d i s mi s s e d th e c o n s t r u c t i v e - t r u s tc l a i m, den i ed th e m o ti o n f o r a pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n, a nd diss ol ved the T R O. Blag oj evi ch so ught i m m edi ate r ev i ew o fthe i m m uni tyi ss ue ; the c as i nos a ppea l ed th e4 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 den i alo fa pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n, whi cha l so b r o ug ht up the j uri sdic ti onaldi sm i ssa l o fthei r constru cti vetr ust cl ai m . W e re in sta ted the TRO pending re sol uti on ofthe appeal s. W e no w r eve rs e. The f or m ergo ver nori s e nti tled to l egi sl ati ve i m m unit y. The Suprem e Cour t has m ade cl ear th ats ta te a nd local o ffi ci al s ar e ab so l ut ely i m m une fro m federa l sui ts fi l ed aga i nst them i n thei r perso nal c ap ac itie s fo r ac tio n s t ak en in c on n ec tio n w ith legit im at e l eg i sl at i ve a ct i vi ty
. Thi s i m m uni tya ppl i es no twi th

sta nd i ng al legati ons ofm i sco nd uct and r ega rdl ess o f w hetherthe offi ce he l d i s l egi sl ati ve or exe cuti ve

— as l ong as the activi tyi n questi on i s functi onal l y l eg islat i ve. U nd erthi s e stabl i shed federa l doctr i n e, Bl agoj evi ch i s i mmun e fr o m c i v i l s u i t f o r h i s r o l e i n i n d u c i ng t he I l l i noi s l egi sl at u re to adopt the H or se Raci ng Acts of 20 06 a nd 2 00 8 an d f o r s i g ni ngtho se A cts into l aw. The RI CO cl ai m s ur vi ve s, ho wev er ; F r i en ds o fBl agoj ev i ch, J ohnston, and the tw o ra cetr acks he o w ns r em ai n as d e fe n d a n t s o n th a tc l a i m. The Tax I nj un c tion A ct doe s no t ba r the c ourtfro m i m posi ng a const ructi ve tr us t on the m oneydi sburs ed fro m t h e H or se Raci ng F und
. The cas i no s urchar ge i s no t a t ax. I t ra ise s no r eve nue f orthe oper ati on o fst ate go ver nm e nta nd s up po r t s n o g o v e r nme nt a l a gency , prog ra m , o r ser vi ce. I t s i m plyta kes pro fi ts fro m a few pr i v a t e fi r ms f o r di r e c t t r a ns fe r t o c e r t a i n f a v o r e d, a pp ar en tly les s-p ro fita b le c om p et ito rs . Th e m on ey is h eld i n a s eg r eg at ed accou nt , may no t be us ed to pa y a ny st at e ex pen se , and i s di sb ur se d wi th i n a few da y s to theN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 5 benefi ci ar y r acet ra cks. A sse sse d as a c ondit i on o fst ate l i censure , t h e surchar ge i s m or e l i ke a r egul ato rypenal ty orfee than a t ax , and ther ef or e the Tax Inj uncti on Act does not apply. W e a l so rej ect the ra c etrack s’ al ternati ve ar gum ents

— precl usi on, abs tenti on, and f ai l ure to sta te a c laim

— o ffer ed i n s uppo r t o fa ffi r m an ce . Th e TRO re m ai ns i n effect.

I . B a c kg r o und On M ay 26, 2 00 6, Gover norBl agoj evi ch si gned a m ost u n u su al b ill in to law . Th e 2 00 6 H or se R ac in g A c t, Illino is Pu b l i c Act 94- 804, ta rg ete d the s tat e’ s four hi ghest

ear ni ng ri verboat casinos and c om pel l ed them to p ay 3% o fthe i r a dj us t e d g r o s s r e v e nu e i nt o a s egr eg a t e d fun d, the “ H or se Raci ng EquityTrustFund ,” for a peri od oftwo ye ar s. 23 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 10/ 7( a). T he m oney depo si te d i nt o the F und

— a “non- appropri ate d trust fund hel d separa te and a p ar t fro m S tat e m oney s”

— is di sb ur se d di r ec tly t o fi ve I l l ino i s ho r se - r ac i ngt r ac k s, the d efe n d an ts h er e, w ith in te n d ay s o f d ep os it. Id. § 5/54.5( a), ( b). T h e m oneyhel d i n the Fund m ay not be t ra nsfer re d t o th e S t a t e ’ s g e n e r a l r e v e n u e fu n d o r o th e r wi s e c o mm i ngl ed w i th pu bl i c fund s and m ay not be al l oc at ed to any s tat e a gencyo r pr og ram o r used to pay any s tat e co sto r e xpe ns e. The r ac et r ac k s m us t sp en d 6 0% o fthe m oneytheyr ecei ve fro m the Fun d on the “purse”

— a ca shpr i ze a w ard ed t o the o wner s o ft o p- fi ni sh i ng h or ses

— and the r em ai ni ng 40 % o n oper ati onalexpenses . Id. T h e ra c et ra c ks are als o re q u ire d to p ro vid e t h e Illino is Raci ng Boar d w i th a detai l ed acco u n t o fm oneyr ecei ved a nd s pe ntfr o m t he F un d.6 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 The I l l i noi s Gener alA ssem bl y m ade se ver all egi sl ati ve f i n d in gs in c on n ec tio n w ith th e 2 00 6 R ac in g A c t. It no t e d tha t fr o m 1992

— the fi rs t y earr i verboatcas i nos b eg an op er at in g inIl lin ois

— thro ugh 200 5, o n-t ra ck ho r se wag er i ngi n I l l i no i s dec r ea se d b y 4 6%. Th is de cl i ne w ou ld be reversed , the legisl atu re found , i f fun d s gen erated by th e 20 06 Ra cingActwer e pai d di r ec tly t o the ho r s e - r a c i ngt r a c k s . He l pi ngthe h o r s e - r a c i ngi nd us tr y, i n turn, would have i m port ant down str ea m bene fi ts f orI l l i noi s f ar m er s, br eeder s, and hor se- ra ci ng f ans. A fter the 2 006 A ct e xpir ed , t he l egi sl atur e e nacted the 20 08 H or se Raci ng Act, I l l i noi s Publ i c Act 95 -1008 , wh i ch effecti vel y extended the 2006 A ct f or anothe r th re e yea rs , thr ough Decem ber20 11. The enactm ent o fthe 2006 Raci ng Ac t s et i n m oti on an ex tr ao rd in ar y c on flu en c e o f ev en ts , l eg al an d p olit ica l. The hi sto ry i s l engthy and c om ple x but i m port ant to so m e o f th e is su es rais ed on ap p ea l, so w e c an n otsk ip o ve r i t. Four d ays a fte r pa ss ag e o fthe 2 00 6 Act, the c as in os filed su it in W ill C ou n ty C irc u it C ou rtch all en g i ngthe Act ’ s co ns ti tu ti o na l i ty
. The y na m ed th e I l l i no i s Tr ea su r era nd the I ll i no i s Ra cingBo ar d a s defen d ants and sued und erthe “Pro tes t M oni es A ct, ” 3 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 2 3 0 /2 a ( f o r mal l y th e S t a t e O ffi c e r s a n d E mp loyees M one y D isposition A ct), w hich a llow s tax p ayers to chal l enge sta te l aw s an d pay the conte ste d m oni es i nto a pro tes t fund unti l th e ac ti on i s r eso l ved. They c laim ed th at th e 2 00 6 R ac in g A c t v iola te d se ve ra l p ro visi ons of the I l l i noi s Consti tuti on, i ncl ud i ng i ts tak i ngs, duep ro c es s, u n iform it y , a n d p u b lic-p u rp os e c lau se s, as w ell as the Tak i ngs Cl ause ofthe Fi fth A m endm ent. The tr i alN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 7

T he Illinois Su p rem e C ou rt he ld tha t the 20 06 R acin g A ct d id 4 no t arb itrarily or u nr ea so na b ly sing le ou t the ca sino s in v io la tio n o f th e st a te co n sti tu tio n ’s u n i f o r m ity cla u se . E m press C as i no Jol i etC orp. v. G i annouli as , 89 6 N .E.2d 277 , 28 4-87( Ill. 20 08 )
. The c our tal s o h el d thats t at e an d feder al t aki ngs ana l ys i s appl i es on l y t o us es ofthe s t at e’ s power ofe m i ne nt d o m a in , an d o n th is b a sis rejec te d t h e ta k in g s cl a im s. Id. at 290- 93. Fi nal l y, the c our tr ej ec t ed the c as i nos ’ ar gum en tthatthe 20 06 Actvi ol at ed the s t at e c ons t i t ut i on’ s publ i c - purpose clau se b eca u se its p rim ary b en eficiaries w ere priv at e p arties; the c our tdefer re d to th e l eg i s l at i ve fi ndi ngs r eg ar di ng the p u b lic b en efi ts o f th e A ct
. Id. at 293- 96. co ur t en te r ed su m m ar y j udg m en t f o r the c as i no s, a nd the state de fen dan ts t o o ka di r ec t appe alt o the I l l i no i s S up rem e C ou rt. On J u n e 5 , 2008, the sta te su p rem e cou rt re ver sed, uphol ding the 2 006 A ct a gains t the cas i nos’ sta te and fe deralco nsti tuti onalchal l enges . E m press 4 Casi no Jol i e tCorp. v. Gi ann oul i as , 896 N
. E
. 2d 277 (I ll
. 2008). Si x m onths l ate r, on Decem ber7, 2008, the U ni ted S tat es A tt or n ey fo r th e N or th er n D ist ric t o f Ill in ois filed a c rim inal co m pla i nt ag ain st Blag oj evi ch accusing the go ver nor of e n ga gin g in a “p olit ica l co rru p t i on cr im e s p re e.” In an a ffi da v i tfi l e d wi th the c o mpl a i nt, a n F BIa g e ntr eco unt ed th e co nt en ts o fi nt er ce pte d pho ne c o nv er sa ti o ns i n w hi ch Bla goj evi ch d iscusse d (a s r el evanther e) so l i cit i ngpa y m en ts a s a qui d pr o quo f o r s i g ni ngthe 20 0 6 R a c i ngAc t
. T he I l l i no i s Ho us e o fR e pr e s e nt ati ves i m m edi ate l y c onve ned a speci ali nvest i gat i ve com m i tte e to i nv es tig at e Bl ag oj ev i ch ’ s al l eg ed m al fea sa nc e an d d e t e r mi n e w h e th e r h e s h o u l d b e i mp e a c h e d
. T h e c o m-8 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

m i tte e’ s fi nal r epor t r eco m m ended im peachm ent b ase d i n parto n Bla goj evi ch’s ar ra ngem ent with J ohn st on f or pol i ti calco n tributi ons i n exchange f orhi s s i gnatur e o n the 2 006 A ct. The I l l i noi s Hou se q uic kl y v ote d to i m peach Bl agoj evi ch , a n d the S enate r em ove d him fro m office on Janu ary 30, 2 0 0 9 . O n A p ril2, 2009, the U
. S. A ttorn eyfi l ed a su per se di ngi ndi ct m en t ch ar g i ng Blag oj evi ch w i th 17cr i m es, i ncl ud i ng wir e fra ud , at
te m p te d ex to rt ion, b rib er y c on sp ira c y, an d rac ke te er in g. A 24- count s econ d superse ding i nd i ctm ent was fi l ed on February4, 20 10. I n the me a nt i me, i n J a nu a r y 2 0 0 9 the casi nos fi l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i i n th e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C ou rt seeking review of th e I ll ino is Su p rem e C ou rt’s deci si on r ej ectin g thei r cl ai m thatthe 2006 Raci ng Act vi o late d the Ta k i ng s Cl au se o fthe fede r alc o ns ti tu ti o n. O n Ju n e 8 , 200 9, th e Su p re m e C ou rtd en ied ce rt iora ri. Em press Casi no Jol i e tCorp. v. Gi ann oul i as , 12 9 S
. Ct. 2764 ( 2009 ). T w o d ay s la te r, th e c as in os f i l ed a p et itio n in W ill Coun ty C i rcui t Cour t forr el i effro m j ud gm ent under 735 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/2-14 01 . The pet i ti on was bas ed o n th e n e wl y d i s c l o s e d i n f o r ma t i o n fr o m th e F B I ’ s i nvest igation of B la g ojevich. Th e casinos told th e cou rt the ne w ev i dence w oul d sh ow thatthe l egi sl ati ve fi nd i ngs in the 2006 Raci ng Act

— on w h ich th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t had so heav i l y r el i ed

— we r e b a s i c al l y a sham
. The 20 06 A ct, t h ey m ai ntai ned, was the product ofa “co rr up t ba rg ai n” betw een Bl agoj evi ch and J ohnsto n an d the r efo r e vi o lated the due

- pr o ce ss c l au se o ftheN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 9 I l l i no i s Con st i tu ti o n. In s uppo r t of thei r pe ti ti o n, the casinos lat ersubm i tte d the F BI age nt’ s a ffi davi t, wir eta p tr an sc r i pts , th e Apri l 2 00 9 su per se di ngi ndi ct m en t, a nd th e r e p o r to fth e l e g i s l a t u r e ’ s s pe c i a l i n v e s t i g a t i v e c o mm i tte e r eco m m ending i m peachm ent. This eff or t t o re open the c onst i tuti onalchal l enge f ai l ed; o n Aug us t 17, 2 00 9, the t r i alj udg e den i ed th e casinos’ peti ti on. T h e j ud ge sai d the l egi sl atur e’ s m oti ve i n pa ss i ngthe 2 006 Rac i ngActwas i r r el ev an t to the A ct’ s co nsti tuti onal i ty. S he speci fi cal l y decl i ned to consi der the FBIagent’ s affi davi t, the w i re tap tr anscr i pts, o r th e s u p e r s e d i n gi n d i c t me n t, s a y i ng th e s e i t e ms w er e inadm i ssibl e hea rs ay, di d n ot contai n “f acts wh i ch ha ve b ee n pr o ve d, ” an d i nv o l ve d a d i ffer en t ca se a nd differ ent par ti es. (T h e j ud ge did, however, ta ke j ud i ci al noti ce o fthe speci ali nvest i gat i ve com m i tte e’ s final re port
. ) The j ud ge then o rder ed the I l l i noi s Tr ea su rer to tr ansferthe m oneydeposi ted u n d er the 200 6 Act fro m th e pr o te st fun d t o the Hor se Ra cingF und, s et tingup the i m m i nent di sburs em ent ofthe m oneyto the ra cetracks
. T he casinos ap p ealed and asked the trial cou rt f o r a s t a y . T hi s r e qu e s twa s de ni e d, a nd the I l l i no i s Appel l ate Courtal so re fused to gr ant a st ay . On J anuary15 , 20 10 , th e c as in os vo lu n ta rily d ism iss ed th is a p p ea l. W hi l e these const i tuti onalchal l enges to t h e 2006 A ct w ere windi ng the i r w ay thro ugh the cour ts, the casinos co m m en ce d a s ec o nd s ui t i n W i l l Cou nty a g ains t th e Illino is T re as u re r an d th e Illino is R ac in g B oa rd ch allengingthe const i tuti onal i ty ofthe 2008 Raci ng Act. Fi l ed on J anua ry 8 , 2 009, thei r com pla i nt al l ege d that the 20 0810 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 A ct was the p ro du ct ofa pay- to- pla y s chem e a nd vi ol ate d va r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s o fth e I l l i n o i s C o n s t i t u t i o n . R e l y i ng excl usi vel y o n the earlier deni alo fthe casinos’ § 2- 1401 pet i ti o n f o r po stj udg m en t r el iefi n the c as e ch al l en g i ng the 2 006 A ct, the W i l l County c ourtdi sm i sse d the new s u i tw i th p r ej u d i c e o n N o v e mb e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 9
. A tth e t i me ofthi s r uling, al l the ra cetr acks e x c ep t F ai rm ount had i nt er ve ne d a s defen dan ts
. The c as i no s appe al ed, a nd the I l li noi s Ap pel l ate Courtdeni ed thei r m oti on f ora sta y. OnF e b r ua r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 , the a pp e l l a t e c o ur ta ffi r med
. W e no w ar ri ve at t h i s ca se. On J une 12, 20 09, two days afte r fi l i ngthe i r mot i o n f o r po stj udg m en t r el i ef in the fi rs t o fthe sta te- cour t ca ses , the casinos fi l ed thi s a cti on inth e N or th er n D ist ric t o f Ill in ois

— th e fi rst to assert cl ai m s di r ec tly a g ains t Bl ag oj ev i ch, J o hns to n, a nd the racetra cks. A s w e h ave n oted , i t has tw o cou nt s: (1) a RI CO

- conspi ra cy c l ai m ag ai nst Bl agoj evi ch, Fr i ends of B lagoj evich, J ohn s t o n, Ba lm oral, and M ayw ood ; and ( 2) a st at e- l aw c l ai m a g ains t al l fi ve r ac et r ac k s se ekinga c o nstr ucti ve tr ust t o preve nt the i r unj ust e nri chm ent fro m the pr oce eds o fthe ra cket eer i ng sc hem e. A few weeks afterthi s ac tio n was fi l ed, the casinos c om m en c ed ye t an ot h er st at e-c ou rt su it, th is tim e in Cook County Ci rcui t Cou rt, se eking i nj uncti ve re l i ef ag ains t th e I l l i no i s Tr ea su r ert o prev en t th e i m m i ne nt tr an sfe r ofthe m oneyfro m the prot estfund to the H or se Raci ng F und and then t o th e r acet ra cks. The co urt dism i sse d thi s a cti on. The cas i nos appeal ed, but l ate r dism i sse d the app ea l a n d i nstea d sought a TRO and pre l i m i naryi nj uncti on fro m the dist ri ct c ourti n thi s ca se.N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 11 They as ked thatany m oneydi sb u rs ed fro m the H or se Raci ng Fu n d be hel d i n an i nter est
-bear i ng speci al escr ow accoun t pend i ng r eso l uti on o fthe federa l sui t. Th e di s t r i c tc o ur te nt e r e d a T RO to tha te ffe c ta nd s c he dul ed a he ar i ng o n th e r eque stf o r a pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n. The defe nd ants opposed the prel i m i naryi nj uncti on and m ove d to dism i ss on s eve ra l le ga l theo ri es. Bl ag oj ev i cha ss er te d l eg i sl at i ve i m m uni ty, a nd he a nd hi s ca m pai gn co m m i tte e a l so ar gued the sui t was bar re d b y r e s j ud i c a t a and f a i l e d t o a de qu a t e l y s t a t e a R I CO c laim . Th e o th er d efe n d an ts on th e RIC O cla im

—J o hns to n, Balm or al, and M aywood

—j o i ne d the l atter two a r g um ents and a lso m ai ntai ned that the c asi nos coul d not p ro ve a patt er n ofr acke tee ring ac ti vi ty orpro xi m ate c a us a t i o n. Onthe c o ns t r uc t i v e - t r us tc l a i m, the r a c e tr acks ( al l of them) a ss er te d m ul ti pl e defen se s: ( 1) the c as i no surchar ge w as a t ax an d therefor e the Tax Inj uncti on Act st r i pped th e co ur t o fs ubj ec t- m at terj ur i sdi ct i o n; ( 2) the acti on was prem atur e because they had not y et re cei ved disb urse m ent o fm oneyunder the R ac ing Acts; ( 3) as a m at te r o fl aw, the y w ere no t “u nj us tly e nr i ch ed” b y the paym ent o fm oneyunder Acts; an d (4) the acti on was barred by re s ju d icata, ori n th e alternative, the cou rt shoul d absta i n und erthe C o lo rad o R iver doctr i ne. The di st r ictc o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o n t o di smi ss the RI CO co unt and al so rej ecte d Blag oj evich’ s cl ai m o f l e g i s l a t i v e i mmu n i t y . O n th e c o n s t r u c t i v e - t r u s tc l a i m, the j ud ge agr eed with the r acet ra cks’ argu m en t that the c asi no s urchar ge w as a t ax and ther ef or e t he Tax I nj unc ti o n Acte l i m i nated the c o ur t’ s j ur i sdi ct i o n. The12 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

A rlin g ton Park, Fair m ount Park, and H aw thorne appear 5 j oi nt l y on a p p eal
. Bal m or al an d M aywood, the t wo ra c et ra c ks ow ne d by J ohn s t on, appe ar t oge the r buts epa ra t el y fro m the o th er three race tr acks. W e will conti nue to re fer t o them coll ect ivel y as “the r acet racks ” unles s the contex t r equire s otherwise
. j ud ge ackno w l edged, howev er , that “ the quest i on i s no t fr ee fr o m d o ubt
. ” The j udg e th endi smi ss ed th e c on st ru c tiv e-t ru st cl a i m , d en ied th e m ot ion for a p re lim inary i nj uncti on, and dis sol ved the TRO
. Bl agoj evi ch appe al ed th e den i alo fl eg i sl ati ve i m m uni ty, a nd th e casinos ap p ealed the d en ialof the ir m otion for a pr el i m i na r yi nj unc ti o n, w hich was pr emi se d o n the j uri sdic ti onal di s mi s s a l o f t he co nstr ucti ve- tr ust c laim . Th e ra c et r ac ks res p on d ed to th e c as in os ’ ap p ea l, defe nd i ng the di str ict co urt’ s deci si on t o dism i ss und er the Tax I nj uncti on Act and al so re i ter ating the i r al ternati ve ar gum ents f ordi sm i ssa l o fth e co nstr ucti vetr us t c l a i m. F r i e nd s o f Bl a g oj e v i c h a nd J o hn s t o n a re not

5 p ar t ies to eith er ap p ea l. W e c on so lid at ed th e a p p ea ls f o r de c i s i o n a nd r e i ns t a t e d the T RO
. I n A ugust 2 010, after a t w o-m onth t ri aland 14 days ofdel iber ati ons, a federa l j ury convi cted Bl agoj ev ich o n o ne c r i m i na l c o unt

— m ak i ng fal se s ta te m en ts t o the F BI

—b u tc o ul d notr e a c h a v e r d i c to n th e o th e r 2 3
. He aw ait s re tr ial, cu rre n tly sc h ed u led for A p ril.N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 13 I I . Discussi on A . Blagojevich’s C laim ofLegislative I m m u n ity W e begin w ith th e qu estion rai sed in B lagoj evich ’s ap p ea l : Does l egi sl ati ve i m m unity s hi el d the f or m er gov er norfro m thi s sui t? The dist ri ct c ourtanswered “no ” an d de ni ed hi s m o ti o n t o di smi ss . A dec isi o n de ny i ng a cl ai m o fi m m unity i s i m m edi ately a pp eal abl e under th e c o l l at er al-o rd er d oc tr in e. M it chel l v. Fors yth , 472 U
. S. 511, 52 4- 25 ( 1985 )
. W heth er B l agoj evi ch i s e nti tl ed to l egi sl ati ve im m unity i s a questi on o fl aw thatwe re vi ew d e n ov o. C a rvaj a l v . D o m ing uez , 54 2 F
. 3d 561, 56 6 ( 7th C ir. 2008). The doctr i ne o fl egi sl ati ve i m m unity i s wel l

- est abl i shed byS upr eme Co ur t an d c i r cui t pr ec ede nt ; s ta te a nd loc al off i c ials are ab so lu te ly im m u n e fro m fed er al s u it f orper sonaldam age s forthei r l egi ti m ate l egis lati ve ac tiv itie s. See B oga n v. Scott -Harris , 523 U
. S. 44, 55 (1998); S u pre me Cou r to

f Vi rgi n i a v. Co n s u mers Uni on o f U. S
. , Inc. , 44 6 U .S. 71 9, 73 1-3 4 (1 98 0); LakeCount ry E stat e s , Inc . v. Taho e R eg’lPlann ing Agency, 440 U
. S. 391, 403-04 (1979 ); Ten ney v . Br andh ove, 34 1 U .S. 36 7, 37 7 (1 95 1); B ibl ia Abie rt a v. Banks , 129 F.3d 89 9, 90 6 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ); Thil l e ns, Inc . v. Cm ty. Cur r e ncy Exc h. Ass ’ n of Il l
. , Inc . , 729 F. 2d 1128 , 11 30- 31 (7th C ir. 1984). Sixty years a g o the Su p rem e C ou rt expla i ned the co ntour s o fthi s co m m on- l aw i m m unity i n Ten ney v . Br andh ove, 34 1 U .S. at 3 77
. Tenn eyh o l ds th at st at e o fficia ls a re ab so lu te ly im m u n e fro m civ il liab ility for a c tiv itie s u n d er ta ke n in “ th e s p h er e o f legit im ate l egi sl ative acti vi ty. ” Id. at 376-77 (“L egislators are i m m une fro m d eterr ents to the uni nhibi ted di schar ge14 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 ofthei r l egi sl ati ve du ty, notf orthei r pri vate i nd ulg ence b u t fo r th e p u b lic g oo d .”). Ten ney did notcr eat e a ne w strain of im m un ity doct rin e ; in stead , the C ou rt hel d that Congr ess i n passi ng the Ci vi l R ights A ct o f 1 8 7 1 , the pr e de c e s s o r t o 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 9 8 3 , ha d no t a bro

gat ed pree xi sting co m m on- l aw l egi sla tive i m m unity for st at e o fficia ls. Id
. at 37 2; see also La k e C o un try E stat es, 44 0 U .S. at 4 03 (“T h e im m u n ity of leg isla to rs f ro m civ il sui t f o r wh a tthe y do o r s a y a s l e g i s l a t o r s h a s i t s r oo ts in the pa rli am en tary str u g g les of16th - an d 17th -cent ury En gl and; such i m m unity w as co nsi ste ntl y r eco gni zed i n the com m on law a n d w as tak en as a m att ero fco urse by ou r N ation’s foun d ers.”)
. Cases deci ded since Tenn eyh av e m ad e c le ar th at th is i m m unity e xtends to al l st ate and l oca l offic i al s, i nc l udi ngtho se o ut si de th e l eg i sl at i ve b ran ch, f o r the perf or m ance o fact s that a re l egi sl ati ve i n char acte r or fu n c tio n . See Bogan , 52 3 U.S
. at55 ( extend in g l egi sl ati ve i m m unity t o a m ay or forsi gning an or dinance i nto l a w) ; Cons um e rs U ni on , 4 46 U. S
. a t 73 1-3 4 ( ex te ndi ng l egi sl ati ve i m m unity t o c laim s fo r i nj uncti ve and decla ra t o r y r e l i e fb r o ughta g a i ns t j ud g e s f o r p r o mul g a t i nga c o de of p ro fes sio n al re sp on sib ility ); La k e C o un try E stat es , 440 U
. S. at 404-05 (exten d ing legi slative i m m un ity to m em bers ofan inter sta te pla n n in g com m i ssi on f orenact i ng a re gi onall and-use or dinance)
. Thi s functi onalapproa ch to l egi sl ati ve i m m unity i s consi ste nt w i th the no rm al m etho d fo r deter m i ni ng the ava i lab il i ty and scope of com m on- l aw i m m unit i es . S ee Forres te r v. White, 484 U
. S. 219, 22 4 ( 1988 ) (“R u n n in g t h ro u gh ou r c as es , w ith fa ir consi ste ncy, i s a ‘ functi onal ’ approa ch to i m m u n ity ques-N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 15 ti ons othe r than tho se that have bee n d ecided by express c on st itu ti o n a l or st at u to ry en ac tm en t.” ); see also R a teree v. R ockett, 85 2 F
. 2d 946, 95 0 ( 7th C i r. 19 88) ( noti ng functional ap p roach to l egislati ve im m un ity). Al tho ugh the S up r e me Co ur th a s n o t s pe c i fi c a l l y a dd ressed a l egislati ve-im m un ity cl aim by a govern or, there i s no pr i nc i pl ed r ea so n t o thi nkthe e st ab l i sh ed do ct r i ne appli es any di ffer entl y t o gov er nor s who ar e s ued fo r thei r ro l e in l egi sl ati ve acti vi ty. Our ci rcui t has sugges ted, albei t in dict a, thatgo vern or s are enti tl ed to l egi sl ati ve i m m unity a gainst c l ai m s fori nj uncti ve re l i ef as wel l a s damag es s ui ts whenthe c o nduc t ati ss ue re lat es to th e le gis lat ive p ro c es s. Se eRi s s e rv. Thom ps on , 930 F. 2d 549, 55 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) (“W h en the gov er noro f a st at e i s ex er ci sing h is vet o po wer, he i s ac tingi n a l egi sl ati ve capaci ty,
. . . and he i s there f or e e n tit led to abso l ute i m m unity. ” ( ci ti ng Tenn eya nd Cons um e rs U ni on ))
. Other ci rcui ts have not h es i tat ed to exte nd l egi sl ati ve im m u n ity to gov er n or s fo r th eir legis lat ive ac ts
. SeeState Em ps . Bargai ni ng Age ntCoal
. v. Rowlan d, 49 4 F
. 3d 71 , 91

- 92 ( 2d C ir. 20 07) ( confi rm i ng av ai l abi l i ty ofl egi sl ati ve i m m uni ty f o r g o ve r no r, but den y i ng i t o n th e gr o und th ata ddi ti ona l di sc o ve r y was ne ce ss ar y t o de te r m i ne w he th er the ac ts in qu estion w ere legi slative); Bar aka v. M cGreevey , 4 81 F. 3d 187, 19 6- 97 ( 3d Cir
. 20 07) ( abso l ute l egi sl ati ve i m m unity forgo ver noradvoc ating passag e ofl egi sl ati on a nd si gni ng bi l l i nto l aw ); To rres-R ivera v. C a ld e r ó n-S erra , 41 2 F
. 3d 205, 21 2- 14 ( 1stCi r. 20 05) ( g o ve r no r e nt i tl ed to l eg i sl at i ve i m m uni tyf o r s i g ni ng leg isla tio n ); Wo m en’s E m ergen cy Netw o rk v. B ush , 32 3 F.3d 937, 950 (11th Cir. 2003) (sam e).16 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 Tenn eyal so est abl i shed that l egi sl ativ e im m unity appli es eve n w hen the offi ci ali s a ccused ofm i scond uct or oth er im p ro p e r m o t i ve . 341 U .S. at 3 76 -77(“T h e c laim of an u nw orthy p urp ose d oes not d estroy th e privil ege.”); see also B o ga n, 523 U
. S. at54 ( “W hetheran a ct i s l egi sl ati ve tur ns o n the n atu re o fthe a ct, r athe r tha n o n the m ot ive or in te n t o f th e o fficia l p er for m in g it.” ); B ibl ia A bie rt a , 129 F.3d at90 3. A c c or d in gly , Ten ney’ s us e o fthe p hra se “legiti m ate legisl ative activity” m us t be un d ersto od as a r efer ence to the g ov er n m entalspher e in w hi ch the o ffi c i a l wa s o pe r a t i ng, no t the l e g a l i t y o r pr o pr i e t y o f h is a c ts
. Tenn ey, 341 U
. S. at 3 76. Legi sl ati ve i m m unity w ou ld h av e “ litt l e v a l u e,” th e C ou rth as ex p lain ed , i f f or ced to gi ve w ay in t h e f ace ofal l ega ti ons ofo ffi ci al m isc o n d u c t
. Id. at37 7. Based o n thi s princi ple , we have extended l egi sl ati ve i m m unity t o sta te offi ci al s despi te alle ga t i o n s o f br ibe ry an d im p ro p er influ en c e. See Thil l e ns , 72 9 F
. 2d at 1130 ( sta te l egi sl ato rs are e n titl ed to l egi sl ati ve i m m unity in spi te ofbr iber y al l ega ti ons)
. Even w hen the pla i nti ff’ s cl ai m i s di re cted pri m ar i l y a t illeg al c on d u c t b y p u b lic off icia ls, im m u n ity at ta c h es if th e cl ai m r equi r es “ ‘ pr o o fo fa l eg i sl at i ve a cto r the m oti ves or p u rp ose s underl yi ng such a n act. ’ ” Id. at11 31 ( qu o t i ng G r a vel v . U nited Sta tes , 408 U
. S. 606, 621 (1972 )) ; s e eal s o Chapp e l l v. Rob b i ns , 73 F. 3d 918 , 9 2 0 , 9 25 (9th C ir. 19 96) ( defe nd ant who a dm itted that he too k bribes in exchange for l egi sl ati on was pro tect ed by l egi sl ati ve im m u n ity in c ivil R IC O ac tio n ). U n d er th is l on g-s ta n d in g d oc tr in e, B lag ojev ich is en tit led to im m u n ity from th is c ivil R IC O su it. T h e a lleg at ion s a re th at th e fo rm er gov er n or to ok b r i b e s inN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 17

ex ch an g e f o r i nfl ue nc i ngthe s ta te l eg i sl atur e to pa ss th e Ra cingAct s an d f o r s i g ni ngthe Act s i nt o l aw. Ori n the ca sino s’ o wn f o r m ul at i o n, J o hn st o n “ bo ug ht ” an d B lag ojev ich “s old ” t h e R ac in g A c ts
. T h e ca sin os ’ cla im cannot be m ade witho ut r efer ence to the for m er gov er nor’s r ol e in sec uri ng the enact m ent o fthes e Acts. SeeCh app el l , 73 F.3 d a t 92 2; Thil l e ns , 72 9 F
. 2d at 1131
. The acti vi ty i n questi on

— i nfl uenci ng the st ate l egi sl ature to pass the bi l l s a nd si gni ng the m i nto l aw

— i s unquestio n ab ly le g i sla tiv e in ch ar ac te r. Se eBogan , 52 3 U.S
. at 55 ( si gni ng a bi l l i nto l aw i s a l egi sl ati ve functi on pro te c te d by im m u n ity ); Thil l e ns , 7 29 F
. 2d at1 13 1 ( i nfl ue nc i ng the l egi sl ati ve proce ss i s a l egi ti m ate legis l ati ve acti vity). Be cau se th e RIC O clai m “broad ly im p li cate [s]” Blag oj evi ch’s r ol e in the l egi sl ati ve proce ss, he i s pro tect ed by abso l ute l egi sl ati ve i m m unity. Thi l l e ns , 72 9 F
. 2d at 1131
. The casinos w ea kly sugg estthatl egi sl ati ve i m m unity is som ehow l i m i ted to § 1983 sui ts and doe s not ap p ly to cla im s u n d er R IC O . Th is is a n on st ar te r. W e h eld l ong ago thatl egi sl ati ve i m m unity app l i es i n a RI CO sui t. Se ei d. at 1129 (hold ing tha t l e g islative im m un ity bars a ci vi l RI CO s ui t as wel l a s cl ai m s unde r § 1 98 3, the S h e r ma n An t i t r u s tAc t, a n d v a r i o u s s t a t e - l a w t o r t s )
. As w e h av e a l re ad y n ot ed , Ten ney did notcr eat e a new im m u n ity appli cabl e o nl y t o § 1 983; r ather, i t hel d that C o n g r e s s d i d n o tab r o g a t e c o mmo n - l a w l e g i s l a t i v e i mm unity when i t e nacted the Ci vi l Rights A ct o f18 71. 34 1 U
. S. at37 2- 77. The S up re m e Cour t has al w ays defi ned l egis l ati ve i m m unity b ro adlyas “abso l ute i m m unity fr o m fe deral dam ages li abil ity, ” wi th o utr efer en ce t o a ny spe ci fi c ca us e o fa ct i o n. La k e C o un try E stat es , 4 40 U
. S. at18 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 40 6 ( emphas i s adde d)
. And l i k e § 19 83 , the r e i s no th i ng i n RI CO to dem onst ra te the “cl ear l egi sl ati ve i ntent” re quir ed to abr oga te com m on- l aw i m m unity. Se ePul l i am v . A l l en , 4 6 6 U. S
. 5 2 2 , 5 2 9 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( ho l di ngtha tc l e a r l e g i sl ati ve i ntent i s r equi re d to abr ogate com m on- l aw p rin c ip l e s o flegis lat ive an d j u d icia l im m u n ity ); see also C hap pell, 73 F .3d at92 3-2 4 (c on c lu d in g t h a t n ot h in g in RI CO ’ s t ext o r l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryev i nces an i ntent to abroga te com m on-law l egislati ve im m un ity). The se pr i nc i pl es o ffederal l aw a r e so c l ea r tha t th e ca sino s f o cus mos t o fthe i r at te nt i o n o n a whol l y di ffer en t poi nt

— that st atei m m uni tyl aw a ppl i es . Thi s i s th e ar g um ent that per suaded the di str i ct c ourt . Th e ca si nos i nsi st th atthe I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in Jorge nsen v. B lagojevic h , 8 11 N. E. 2d 65 2 ( I l l
. 2 00 4) , whi chd en ied the nGov erno r Bl ag oj ev i chl eg i sl at i ve i m m un i tyunde r the Illino is C on st itu tio n, m u st co n tr ol th is c as e. N o t s o. It is bl ackl ett erl aw that “ [t]h e e l em ents of, and the defe nses to , a f e d er al c au se of ac tio n are d efin ed by fed er al la w .” Ho w lett v. R o se, 496 U .S. 35 6, 37 5 (1 99 0); s ee a lso Ow e n v . C ity of Independenc e, 445 U .S. 62 2, 64 7 n .30 (19 80 ) (“M u n icipal defenses

— i n c l u d i n ga n a s s e r t i o n o fs o v e r e i g n i mm unity
— to a fede r alr i g hto fa cti o n a r e, o fc o ur se , c o ntr ol l ed by federa l l aw . ”)
. Ind eed, the Suprem e Cour t has express l y r ej ect ed t he posi ti on that a st ate co nsti tuti on or othe r sta te l aw shoul d hav e any effect on feder al c om m on -law legis lat ive im m u n i t y. See La k e C o un try E stat es , 440 U
. S. at40 4- 05 ( “[ T]he abso l ute i m m unity f o r s ta te l eg i sl at o r s r ecogni ze d i n Tenn eyr efl ec te d the Court’ s inter pr et at i on o ffedera l l aw ; the deci si on did notdepend o n the prese nce o fa speech o r debateN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 19 cl au se i n the c o ns ti tu ti o n o f an y S ta te , o r o n a ny p ar tic u lar se t o f st at e ru les or p ro c ed u re s a v a i l a b le to d iscipli ne erri ng l egislators. ”). Th e r e i s g o o d r e a s o n t o p r e s e rv e the co nt e nta nd s c o pe offedera l i m m unity doct rine fro m st ate encr oac hm ent. W er e i t o ther w i se, st ate s co uld s tr i p thei r offi ci al s o f i m m unity in federa l co urt ori m m unize th em forfedera l co ns ti tu ti o na l o r s ta tu to r y v i o l at i o ns , fr us tr atingthe oper ati on a nd uni f or m i ty offedera l la w . Then-J ud ge St ev en s m ad e t h is p oin t e x p lic i t i n a n op in ion for th is c ou rtm or e t h an th irt y y ea rs ag o: Cond uctb y p e r s o ns a c t i ngu nd e r c o l o r o fs t a t e l aw w hi ch i s wrongful und er42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 o r § 1 985( 3) cannot be i m m unize d by s tat e l aw . A c onstructi on o f the federa l st atute w hi ch perm i tte d a st ate i m m unity defe nse t o have contr ol l i ng effec t would t ra nsm ute a ba si c g uaran te e i nt o a n i l l us o r y pr o m i se ; a nd the su pr e mac y c l a us e o fthe Co ns t i t ut i o n i ns ur e s that the p r o pe r c o ns t r uc t i o n mayb e e nfo r c e d. Ham pt on v. C i ty of

Chi cago , 484 F. 2d 602, 607 ( 7th Cir. 1973). The su gg es ti on that st atei m m unity l aw di spl aces an o the r wi s e v a l i d c l a i m o ffe de r a l i mm un i t y i s a b i to dd, o r a t l ea stunworkabl e; f o r the r ea so ns no te d i n Ham pt on , the s cope o fa p u b lic o ffi ci al ’ s i m m unity fro m sui t o n a fede ral claim i n fed eral court is a m atter of fe deral l a w. M or eov er, so m e s tat es have l i ttl e o r n o devel oped j u ris p ru d en c e i n t h i s are a. In d ee d , th e la w oft en ru n s in the o pp osi te dir ecti on . S tat e co urts have i m port ed fede r alc o m m o n- l aw i m m uni tydo ct rin e i nt o a ct i o ns ar is i n g u n d er st at e la w . See, e.g., Cam ac ho v
. Sa m ani ego ,20 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 95 4 S
. W
. 2d 81 1, 8 23 ( Te x. C t. App. 1 99 7) ( “Be ca us e th e j u ris p ru d en c e o f legis lat ive im m u n ity is n otw ell d ev eloped i n Texas, w e w il l r el y o n federa l autho ri ti es to as se ss the a ppl i cabi l i tyo fthis form ofi m m uni tyt o the c a s e be for e u s.” ); s e ea l s o Br own v . Ci ty of Bo r de n t own , 79 1 A. 2d 10 07, 1 01 0 ( N
. J
. S upe r . Ct
. App. Di v. 2 00 2) ( ado pting federa l co m m on- l aw le gi sl ati ve i m m unity in sta te- l aw action ); D ubli n v. State, 74 2 N
. E.2 d 232, 23 6- 37 ( Ohio Ct. A pp . 2000 ) ( l oo ki ng to federa l case s to defin e le gisl ati ve im m un ity). W e al so r ej ec t appl i ca ti on of Jo rgen sen o n i t s o wn te rm s. Jo rgen sen di d noti nvol ve a quest i on o fl egi sl ati ve i m m unity fro m a perso nal

- dam age s s uit
. T o the co ntra ry, Jo rgen sen was a c l ass - acti on s uitfi l ed by I l l i nois j ud ges aga i nst Gove rno r Blag oj evi ch and the I l l i noi s Com ptro l l er in th eir of

f i ci al c a p a c i t i e s s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t i o n th a tt he gov er nor ’ s use o fhi s veto to blo ck a j ud i ci alp ay ra i se w as unc o ns ti tu ti o na l
. 81 1 N
. E. 2d at 65 4- 59
. I n rej ec ting B lag ojev ich ’s c laim of leg isla tiv e im m u n ity , th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t s peci fi cal l y e xplained that the j ud ges w er e no t t ry i ng to hol d the g ove rn or per sonal l y l i abl e, norwere they “att em pti ng to f or ce hi m to t ake o r to re fra i n fro m ta kin g a ny par ti cul aract i on. ” Id. at 666. There w as “nothi ng unusual abo ut hi s incl usi on a s a part y,” t he co urt sai d, because he was “o ne o fthe sta te offi ci al s invol ved i n the se q u en ce o fev ents” thatl ed to the j ud i ci ar y’ s f ai l ure to re cei ve a cos t- of

- l i vi ng i ncre ase . Id. The r ejec ti on o fi m m unity in a c ase l i ke Jo rgen sen i s unsurpr i si ng; st ate o fficial s a re o bvi ousl y no t s hi el ded f ro m a l l j ud i c i a l r e v i e w o fthe c o ns t i t ut i o na l i t y o fl e g i s l ati ve acts
. Se e P ow el l v. M cCo rm ick, 39 5 U.S
. 48 6, 50 3 ( 1969 )N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 21 (“L eg isla tiv e im m u n ity d o e s n ot, of co u rs e, ba r all j ud i c i a l r e v i e w o fl e g i s l a t i v e a c t s . ” )
. In s ho r t, the ty pe ofl egi sl ati ve i m m unity fro m p er sonal

- dam age s s uit s ar ti cul at ed i n Tenney s im p ly w as n otim p lica te d in Jo rgen sen . In d ee d , Jorge ns e n did notaddress co m m on- l aw l egi sl ati ve i m m unity at all
. Ins tead , the Il linois Sup rem e C ou rt re l i ed on Arti cl e I V ofthe I l l i noi s Const i tuti on

— I l l i noi s’ equi val ent o fthe U
. S. Consti tuti on’ s S peech o r Debate Clause

— and § 10 7- 7 of the I l l i noi s Code o fCri m i nal Pr o c e du r e . 8 1 1 N. E. 2 d a t66 6. T he state con stitut ion’s speech- and-debate pro vi si on i s l i m i ted byi ts te rm s t o m em b er s o f th e Illino is G en er al A ss em b ly a n d is p lain ly in ap p lic a b l e t o B lag ojev ich
. Id. The s ame wo ul d b e true ofthe U
. S. C onst i tuti on’ s Speech or Debate Clause , wh i ch ap p lies on ly to le g i s lat or s a n d th eir aid es . See G rav el , 408 U
. S. at61 6- 17. But federa l co m m on- l aw l egisl ati ve i m m unity i s dist in c t fro m and br oaderthan the federa l c on st itu tio n ’s S p e e c h an d D eb at e C lau se . See U nited State s v. G il lock, 44 5 U .S. 36 0, 37 2 n. 10 ( 1980 ) ( “Despit e the fre quent i nvocat i on o fthe federal S p eech orDebate C lause i n Tenn ey, th e C o u r th a s ma d e c l e a r th a tthe hol ding w as gr ou n d ed o n i ts i nter preta ti on o ffedera l com m on law , not on the Sp eech or D ebat e C lause.”). Rec ogniz i ng thi s di stincti on, st ate co urts , l i ke federa l cour ts, have nothesi tat ed to exte nd co m m on- l aw l egi sl ati ve i m m unity to executi ve offi ci al s, i ncl ud i ng governor s. S e e, e .g., H um a ne So c’y of N .Y . v. City of N ew Yo rk, 72 9 N
. Y. S. 2d 360, 36 3 ( N
. Y. S up . Ct. 2 00 1) ( “The S peech o r Debate Clause appli es by i ts ter m s o nl y t o ‘m em ber s’ o f22 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

W e ag ree w ith ou r d issentin g c ollea g u e tha t Jo rge ns e n w as an 6 u n u s u a l c a s e . B u twe d o n o tag re e t h a tth i s me a n s we s h o u l d c e r t i fy th e i mmu n i t y qu e s t i o n t o th e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Cour t
. Tha t appr oac h a s s um es thatthe s c ope an d co nt en tof fe d e r a l c o mmo n - l a w l e g i s l a t i v e i mmu n i t y i s d e t e r mi n e d by re fer en ce to s t a t e l a w . It is n o t. SeeBogan , 523 U.S. at 48- 49; L ake C ou n try E st ates , 44 0 U .S. a t 4 0 4 -0 5 ; Tenn ey, 341 U.S. at 372. I n the di s t r i c tc ou r t, B lag oj e vi c h a s s e r t e d tha tl e gi s l a t i ve 7 i m m uni t y r equi re d dis m i s s al ofthe RICO c l ai m ag ain st (co n tin u ed ...) the l egi sl atur e. H owever, a sim il arco m m on- l aw l egi sl ativ e pr ivile ge is ap p lica b le to go ve rn m en t offic i a l s in th e e x ec u tiv e b r a n c h w h en en ga ge d in le gis lat ive ac tiv ities. ”); M a nd el v. O ’Ha ra , 57 6 A.2d 766, 78 1 ( M d. 1990 ) ( gov er noren titl ed to co m m on- l aw l egi sl ati ve i m m unity f o r leg i sl at i ve a ct s des pi te l i te r alwor di ngo fs ta te c o nst itu tio n al p ro vis ion ). For a ll th es e re as on s, th e c as inos

— and the di str i ct c ourtto o

— have si m plym i sr ead Jo rgen sen . I t i s no t ata l l c l ea r tha t i fpr esen ted w ith a pr o perc l ai m o fc o m m o n- l aw l eg i sl at i ve i m m unity, the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t w ou l d l i m i t the i m m unity t o m em ber s o fthe l egi sl atur e. 6 Regar dle ss, i t is a b und antl y c l earthatf orthi s f e de r al cl ai m i n f

e de r al co urt, st ate l egi sl ati ve- i m m unit y law has no e ffect; federa l i m m uni tydo ct r i ne a p pl i es . And u n d er th at d oc tr in e B lag ojev ich is im m u n e f r o m t h is c ivil RI CO a ct i o n a nd m ust be di smi ss ed fr o m the s ui t. The R I C O c laim m ay p roceed i n h is absen ce, how ever; J ohnsto n, Bal m or al, M aywood, and Fr i ends ofBl agoj evi ch re m ai n as defe nd ants. 7N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 23

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 Fr i e nd s o fBl a goj e vi c h be c a us e pr ox i m a t e c a us e c ou l d n otbe p r o v e d w i th o u ti n q u i r y i n t o a c t s p r o t e c t e d b y l e g i s l a t i ve i m m unity
. W ha t e ve r the m e r i t s o fthi s a r gu m e nt, F r i e nd s of B lag ojev ich is no t a pa rty to this ap p eal and is n o tit se lf e nt i t l ed to i m m un i t y. Our c on c l us i onr e ga r di ng l e gi s l a t i ve im m u n ity ex te n d s o n ly to B la g ojev ic h h im se lf. B. Tax I njuncti on A ct W e no w m ove to the questi on r ai sed i n the casinos’ ap p eal: Do es t h e T ax Injun ction A ct block th e cou rt’s j ur i sdi ct i o n t o i m po se a c o ns truct i ve t r us t o n the p r o c e e d s d i s b u r s e d fr o m th e Ho r s e R a c i n g F u n d? The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a n s we r e d “ y e s ” a n d d i s mi s s e d t he const ructi ve- tr ust cl ai m f orl ack ofj uri sdic ti on, deni ed th e ca sino s’ mot i o n f or a pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n, a nd d issolved the T R O
. A d ecision d en yin g a prelim inary i nj un c t i o n mayb e i mm edi a t e l y a pp e a l e d. 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 292( a) ( 1)
. W h etherthe Tax I nj uncti on Act appli es i s a questi on of la w thatwe re vi ew de nov o. U nited Sta tes v. Ros e nb ohm , 564 F.3d 820 , 822 (7th C ir. 2009). The Tax I nj uncti on Act prov i des that “[t ] he di str i ct cour ts shal l notenj oi n, suspend orr est ra in t h e a sse ssm en t, levy or coll ection of an y t a x u n d er State law w he re a pl ain, s pee dy an d e ffi ci en t r emedy may be ha d i n the c o u r t s o fs u c h S t a t e . ” 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 4 1
. T h e S u p r e me Cou r t ha s ex pl aine d tha t “ th e pr i nc i palpur po se o fthe [ Ta x I nj un c t i o n Act ] [ i ] s t o ‘ l i mit dr a s t i c a l l y ’ fe der al

- cour t inter fer en c e with ‘ the c ol l ecti on o f[ sta te] ta x es .’ ” H i b b s v. Wi nn , 5 42 U. S
. 8 8, 1 05 ( 20 04 ) ( quo ting24 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 C alif ornia v. Grace B re thre n Ch urch , 45 7 U.S . 3 93 , 40 8- 09 ( 198 2)). Bu t the Court“r eads the st atute nar ro w l y t o bar onl y c l ai m s that w ou ld r educe the fl ow ofst ate ta x re venue. ” Le vy v. Pappas , 510 F. 3d 755, 760 n.1 (7th C ir . 2007). Onthi s un de r s t a nd i ng, the Ac tdo e s n o tp r o hib i t“ fe de r a l

- c o urt i nt e r fe r e nc e wi th a l l a s pe c t s o fs t a t e t a x a dm i ni str ati on, ” H ibb s , 542 U
. S. at 105 ( quotati on m ar ks o m i tt ed) , b uto per at es m ore na r r o wl y t o pr ev en t federa l co urts fro m i nter fer i ng with a s tat e’ s co l l ecti on o f ta x rev en u e, s e ei d. at10 6 (“ Ourpr i o r de ci si o ns [ r eg ar di ng th e A c t] a re n otfairly p or t r ay ed cu t loo se from th eir se cur e, s ta te
- r ev en ue - pr o te ct i ve moo r i ng s. ”)
. “ I fthe re l i efso ught ‘ w oul d .
. . o perat e[ ] to r ed u c e th e fl ow of sta te tax r eve nue’ orwould ti e up ‘ ri ghtful tax r eve nue ,’ t h e n t h e A c t b ar s fe d er al jur isd ict ion ov er th e c laim s.” Le vy, 5 1 0 F
. 3 d a t7 6 2 ( qu oti ng H ib bs , 542 U
. S. at10 6, a nd Rose wel l v. La Sal l eNat ’ l Bank, 450 U
. S. 50 3, 52 7- 28 (19 81 )); see also Sco tt A i rF o r c e B a se P rop s. , LL C v. Cnty. of St. Clair, 548 F.3 d 516, 52 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( Tax I nj uncti on Act appl i es i f“ th e reli ef soughtwoul d di m i ni sho r e ncu m ber stat e tax reven ue ”). A thr es ho l d que sti on un derthe Acti s whethe r the casino s urchar ge i s a “t ax. ” The r acet rac ks m ai ntai n that it is a n d th er efo re th e A c t a p p lie s ; t h eir arg u m en t is b as ed larg ely o n t h e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rt ’s d ec isio n in Em pre s s Cas i no v. Gi ann oul i as . T he r ac et r ac k s co nt en d th at w e shou ld d efer to the w ay th e state s u p rem e cou rt chara c te rized the surchar ge i n uph ol ding i t a gainst th e c as in os ’ co n st itu tio n al c h alle n ge s. T h is a rg u m en t is m ispl aced. W hethera parti cul arst ate o r l oca l as ses sm en t is a ta x for p u rp os es of th e T ax Inju n c tio n A c t isN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 25 a q u es tio n of fed er al la w . Wr ightv. Ri ve l and, 219 F
. 3d 905, 91 1 ( 9 t h C i r . 200 0); Wright v. M cClain , 83 5 F
. 2d 143, 14 4 (6t h C ir. 19 87 ); Tram el v. Sch rad er, 505 F. 2 d 13 10 , 131 5 n .7 ( 5th Ci r. 19 75)
. That the sur charg e su rv i ved uni f or m i ty and pu bl i c- pu rpos e cl ause chal l enges under the st ate co ns ti tu ti o n i s i r r el ev an t to thi s que st i o n. A co m m on di ffi cul ty i n apply i ng the Tax I nj uncti on A cti s di st i ng ui sh i ngb etwee n a “ ta x” a nd a “ r egul at ory fe e . ” F e e s a s s e s s e d p u r s u a n tt o a r e g u l a t o r y s c h e me f al l o utsi de the am bi t o fthe A ct, an d so federa l sui ts chal l engi ng st ate o r l oca l r egul ato ryfees do noti m plic ate t h e A c t’s j u ris d ict ion al b ar . Hager v. C ity of W
. Peoria , 84 F.3 d 86 5 , 8 70 -71 (7t h C ir. 19 96 ); B idartBros. v. Ca l. App le C om m ’n , 73 F. 3 d 9 2 5 , 9 30 -31 (9t h C ir. 19 96 ); San Juan C el lularTel . Co
. v. Pu b. Se rv. Co m m ’n of P uer to Rico , 96 7 F
. 2 d 6 8 3 , 6 8 5
- 8 7 ( 1 s t C i r . 1 9 9 2 )
. We h a v e e x p l a i ne d t he dist i ncti on in thi s way: Cour t s f a c e d wi th di s t i ngui s hinga “ t a x” fr o m a “ fee” “have tended
. . . to em phasi ze the r eve nue’s ul ti m ate u se, as ki ng wh etheri t pr ovi des a gener albene fi t t o th e publ i c, o fa s o r t o ften f i na nc ed bya g en er alt ax , o r wh e th e r i tp r o v i d e s mo r e n a r r o w b e n e fi t s t o r e g ul ate d com panie s o r defray s the a gency ’ s co st ofr egula ti on . ” Hager, 84 F. 3d a t 870 ( quo tingSa n Juan Ce l l ul ar, 96 7 F
. 2d at 685). Our dec i si o n in Hager dr ew on the Fi r stCi r cui t’ s i nfl ue nti al op ini o n in San Juan Ce l l ul ar, i n w hi ch then-J ud ge Br ey ere l ab o r at ed o n the di ffer en ce b etwe ena t ax a nd a r egul ato ryfee f orpurposes o fthe Tax I nj uncti on Act:26 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 [ Courts] have sk etche d a spect rum w ith a para dig

m at i c ta x a t o ne e nd a nd a pa r adi g m at i c fee a t th e oth er. Th e classic “tax ” is im p os e d by a l egislature up on m any, o r al l, ci ti zens. I t r ai ses m oney, co ntribut ed to a ge ne r alfund, and spe ntf o r the b en efi t o fthe en tir e c om m u n it y. T h e c las sic “re gu lat or y fe e” is i mpo s e d b y a n a g e nc y u po n tho s e s ubj e c tt o i t s r egu lat ion . I t m ay se rv e re gu lat or y p u rp os es d ire c tly by, for e xam ple , del iber ate l y di sco urag i ng par ti cul ar conduct by m aking it m or e e xpensiv e. Or, i t m ay ser ve su c h purposes i nd i re ctl y b y, f orexam ple , ra isin g m on ey p lac ed in a sp ec ial fu n d to h e lp d efr ay th e a ge n c y’s reg u lat ion -re lat ed ex p en se s. San Juan Ce l l ul ar, 967F .2 d a t 6 85 (cit at ion s o m itt ed ). San Juan Ce l l ul ar wa s a c ha l l e ng e t o a 3 % “ pe r i o di c f ee” as ses sed bythe Puerto Ri co Publi c S er vi ce Com m i ssi on o n th e rev enues o fa pri vate cel l ula r- tel ephone co m pany as a co nd i ti on o fi ts oper ating per m i t. The fee w as ass ess ed bya r egul at o ry a gen cy, pl ac ed i n a s pec i alfund, a nd used not f orge nera l go ver nm entalpurposes b u t t o d efr ay th e c os ts of th e a ge n c y’s reg u lat or y a c t i v i t i es . Id. at6 86
. On th es e f ac ts the F i r stCi r cui t he ld th at“ th e
‘ peri odi c fee’ i s a r egul ato ry‘ fee ,’ n ot a t ax, ” a nd ther efor e t h e T ax Inju n c tio n A c t d id n otap p ly. Id. Apply i ngthe se pr i nc i pl es i n Hager, w e hel d that a per m i t fee a ss es se d o n t r uck s ex ce edinga c er ta i n wei g ht l i m i t o n a three

-bl ockst re tch of ro ad w ay i n W estPeo ri a, I l l i noi s, was not a t ax f orpurposes o fthe Tax I nj uncti on A ct. 84 F.3d a t 87 1- 72
. The fee a t i ss ue i n Hagerhad bee n ado pte d t o pr o m o te pub l i c saf ety a nd he l p de fr aytheN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 27

m unici pal i ty’ s co st ofm ai ntai ni ng the r oad ; the poi nt o f the o rdi nance was to regulatethe oper ato rs o fl arge vehi cl es w ho use d the r oad , not t o t ax them to r ai se g e n e r al re ve n u e. Id. at87 1. W e r eached the o pp osi te con cl us i o n in Schneide r Transport, Inc. v. Ca tt ana ch , 65 7 F. 2d 128 ( 7th Ci r. 19 81 ), anothercas e invol vi ng l evi es o n t r uck s. In Sc hn eider a t r u c k i n g c o mpa n y su ed th e W i sc o ns i n S ec r et ar y of Tr an spo r ta ti o n t o e nj o i n the i m posi ti on o f a v eh i cl e- re gi str ati on fee on i ts fl eeto f truck s. Tr uck

- r eg i st r at i o n f ees wer e depo si te d i n the sta te’ s tra n sp or tat i on fund and used forge nera l tr ansp or ta tio n p u rp os es , “ in c lu d in g h igh w ay co n st ru c tio n .” Id. a t 13 2. W e co ncl ud ed that the fee w as a t ax f or p u rp os es of th e T ax I nj u n c tio n A c t. Id. Unl i k e th e per m i t fee i n Hager, th e fee i n Sc hn eider w as “i m posed f or r ev en u e-r ais in g p u rp os es , a ch ar ac te ris tic of an y t ax .” Id. ; see also Hager, 84 F. 3d at 872 n. 6 ( dist i ngui shi ng Schneider )
. Th ou gh the fees were hel d i n the sta te tr anspor tati o n fun d a nd n o tc o mm i ng l e d wi th g e ne r a l s t ate re venues, the m oney w as al l oca ted to hi ghw ay const ruction an d other trad iti ona l g o vern m en tal services pe rtaining to th e op eration an d m ainten an ce of the stat e’s tr an sp or ta tio n infr as tr u c tu re . Sc hn eider, 657 F. 2d at 132. The c as i no s ur ch ar g e ati ss ue he r e ha s no ne o fthe nor m alchar acte ri sti cs o fa tax. The surchar ge i s a sse sse d as a “ condi ti on o fl i censure” and app ear s in the sect i on ofth e Ri verboatGam bl i ng Act capti oned “Ow ners [ si c] L i censes . ” 2 30 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 1 0 / 7
. T ho ugh not d isp os itiv e, th e R ac in g A c t s n e v e r re fer to it as a “t ax .” Other provi si ons i n the Riv erboatGam bl i ng A ct l ay taxes o n ri ve rbo at casinos f orge nera l publi c purpose s.28 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 Forexam ple , se cti on 1 3 ofthe Riv erboatGam bl i ng Act, enti tl ed “W age ring ta x; r ate ; di str ibuti on, ” l ays o u t a detai l ed tax s c h em e a pp l i cabl e t o al l r i verboatcas i nos. Id. § 10/13. T he taxe s coll ecte d u nd er this section are expli ci tl y re fer re d t o as “tax re venue” subj ect to ap propr i at i o n b y the I l l i no i s G en er alAss embl y ; the r ev en ue su pp ort s tr adi ti o na l g o ve r nm en ta l s er vi ce s ( e. g . , the cri m i nal j usti ce s yst em , educati on) a n d i s di str ibuted to th e c ou n tie s in w h ich th e c as in os are sit u at ed
. Id. § 10/13(b), (c-20), ( d ). I n contr ast, the casino s urchar ge si m plysk i m s pro fi ts fro m a hand ful ofpri vate co m panie s forthe dir ect benefi t of a few of thei r com peti tor s. I t appli es on ly to th e sta te’ s four hi ghest

- ear ni ng r i verboatcas i nos, not a br oaderse gm ent o fthe pop u lat ion. The m oneyi s depo si te d i n a s pec i als eg r eg at ed ac co unt, no t th e state’s ge ne r alr ev en ue fund, a nd i s di sb ur se d wi th i n a few days dir ectly t o the r acet ra cks . N ot a penny can be t ouch ed b y a ny st ate ag ency orused f orany sta te pr o g r am o r e xpe ns e. In s ho r t, the s urcha r g e r ai se s no sta te re ve n u e i n the usual se nse

— ori n any sense , r eall y. I t’s not even a classic r egu latory fee, since no p art o fi tgoes to s up po r tthe s t a t e ’ s g a mi ngr e g ul a t o r y a pparatus. A s thi s r egul atorysche m e i s s et up , the sta te is l ittl e m or e t ha n a m idd lem an f or the involu nt ary tran sfer ofprop erty from one p rivate ow ne r to anoth er. I t i s i m m ate ri althatthe Raci ng Acts pl ace cer tain re str i cti ons on how the race tr acks m ay spend the m oney the y r e c e i v e . Al l o fthe mo ne y
— 100%

— is for th eir so le p riv at e b en efit ; no n e o fit

— zero

— m ayb e us ed f o r a nyN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 29 sta te expense. In thi s s ense, the casino s urchar ge i s e ven less l i k e a t ax tha n the pe r m i t fee i n Hager, the p r o c e e ds ofwh i ch w er e put t owar d r oa d r epai rs , a tr adit i onal pu bl i c se rv i ce; nonethel ess , we h el d ther e that the Tax Inj uncti on Act did notapply
. Hager, 8 4 F
. 3 d a t 8 7 1. And the s urchar ge i s no thi ng l i ke the t ruck- re gi str ati on fee ati ss ue i n Sc hn eider, w hi ch w e sai d w as a t ax; the re gi str ati on fee w as c olle cted fro m tr ucki ng fi rm s t o pay f orhi ghw ay const ructi on a nd o therge nera l st ate tr ansport ati on nee ds. The obvi ous obj ect o f t h e ca si no s urchar ge i s no t t o ra ise m on ey for a gov er n m en ta l p r o g ra m or p u b lic ser vi ce b ut to pro tectthe ra cetr acks fro m the effec ts of c om p et itio n from rive rb oa t g am b lin g. T h i s p u rp os e is re gul ato ry, notr eve nue-r ai si ng. A co nstr ucti ve tr u st on the pr oce eds o fthe H or se Raci ng F und would have no effect on th e pu bli c fi sc; i t w ou ld d efeat th e stat e’s re gul ato rypurpose but would not“o perat e[ ] to r educe the fl ow ofst ate ta x re venue. ” Le vy, 510 F. 3d at 762. Tha t the Ge ne r alAss embl y i den ti fi ed an indirec tp u b lic benefi t fro m p ro pp i ng up the r acet ra cks i s no t e nough to make the c as i no s ur ch ar g e a tax. On thi s po i ntthe N i nth Ci r cui t’ s dec i si o n in B ida rti s instr uc tiv e. I n that case , the cour t hel d that the Tax Inj uncti on Act did not b a r a fe d e r a l s u i tc h a l l e n g i n gth e C a l i f o r n i a A p p l e C o mm i ssi on’ s a sse ssm en t o ffees o n apple producers to supp ort a dvert i si ng and other acti vi ti es desi gned to bo o sta ppl e co ns um pti o n. 7 3 F
. 3d at9 27
. Li k e the Ra cing Acts he r e, the en abling l eg i sl at i o n a t i ss ue i n B idart co nta in ed find in gs ab o u t t h e im p or ta n c e o f th e a p p le30 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

T he G en era l A ssem b ly’s auth or ity to ena c t t he R acin g A cts 8 m ust be locat ed in one oftw o plenary l egis lat ive pow ers

— the power t o tax or the pol i c e power . W he n we r ai s ed thi s i s s ue at or al ar gum en t, c ouns els ugge s t ed thatthe s our c e ofthe l eg i s l ature’ s power was e i the r the uni f or m i t y c l aus e or the p u b lic-pu r p o se clau se of the Illino is Co nstitu tion
. T his is incor rec t; the unif orm ity and pub li c- pu rpose c laus es are li m its on state leg islativ e p ow er, not sources of it. in d u st ry to th e s ta te ’s e c on om y. Id. (n ot i ng l egi sl ati ve fi ndi ng s to the e ffec t th at“ [ t] he mai nt en an ce ofthe ap p le ind us try .
. . i s nec ess a r y t o assu re the p ub li c of a co nt i nuo us s uppl y o fthi s vi ta l f o o d pr o ducta nd the m ai ntenance ofneeded l eve l s o finc om e fortho se p erson s eng aged i n the ind us try”). N o m atter; the cou rt hel d that the apple a sse ssm ent was a re gul ato ryfee, n ota ta x . “T h e in d ire c t b en efitth a t m a y a c c ru e t o C alif or ni a’ s g ener alpopula ce thro ugh increas ed dem and fo r apples as a re sul t ofadver ti si ng o r educati on i s no t the type o fpubli c be nefi t that m ake s a n ass ess m ent a tax. ” Id. at 933. Finally, w e not e th at th e 2006 an d 2008 R acing A cts w ere en ac ted under the st ate l egi sl atur e’ s pol i ce power, not i ts t ax po wer . Ca sino g ami ng a nd ho r se - tr ac kb et ting 8 ar e hi g hl y r egul at ed i ndus tr i es . The Rive rbo atGa m bl i ng A ct, wh i ch the Raci ng Acts am end, i s e x p li ci t that i ts au th or i ty is d ra w n from th e p olic e p ow er . See 23 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 10/ 2 ( b ) (“[R ]eg u lat or y p ro vis ion s o f th is [R ive rb oa t G am b lin g] A c t a re d es ign ed to st r i c tly re gul ate the f acil i ti es, per sons, as soc i ati ons and practi ces re l ate d to gam bl i ng o perat i ons pu rsuant to the policeN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 31

The Su pre m e Cour t ’ s d ecis i on i n Levi n v. C omm er ceEn ergy, 9 Inc. , 13 0 S. C t. 23 23 ( 20 10 ) , doe s no taffec tour dec i s i on. The que s t i on i n Le vi n w as w hetherthe doctri ne ofcom ity precludes the e xe rc i s e offede ra l

- c our tj u risd ic t i on i n a c as e c hal l en gi ng a s t at e t ax as di s c rim i nat or y i n vi ol at i on ofe qua l pr ot ec t i on o r t h e d o rm a n t C o m m er ce C la u se . Id
. a t 2 3 3 2 -3 3
. Le vi n w as a sui t agai nstthe O hio Tax C o m m is si oner by sel le rs ofnatural gas seeki ng d ecl arat ory and i njunct ive r el ie fi nvalidati ng tax exem p ti ons gi ven to theircom peti tors
. The Co urt hel d that the claim of discr im ina tor y ta xatio n m u st pro ceed orig ina lly in st ate co u rt , even w hen “fram ed as a reques t t o inc reas e a (co n tin u ed ...) po w ers o f the St ate , i ncl ud i ng co m prehensi ve l aw enf or cem en t su per vi si o n. ” ( emphas i s adde d) )
. S i m i l ar l y, the l egi sl atur e’ s au th or i ty to re gul ate hor se ra ci ng r esi des i n th e p olic e p ow er . S e e F i n i s h L i n e Ex p r e s s , In c . v . Ci tyof C hi cago , 3 7 9 N. E. 2 d 2 9 0 , 2 9 2 ( I l l
. 1 9 7 8 ) ( I ti s “ un di s pu t e d” that gam bl i ng o n hor se ra ces i s s ubj ect to r egul ati on orco m ple te prohibi ti on under the l egi sl atur e’ s p olic e po wer . )
. Thi s su ppo r ts o urc o nclus i o n tha t th e ca sino su rch arge is prop erly ch aract erized as a reg ulatory p en alt y or fee , no t a ta x . See Hager, 84 F.3 d at 8 7 1 (p e rm it fee enacte d und era m unici p ality ’ s pol i ce power ra ther th an i ts tax ing p ow er i s not a tax ). Because the sur ch ar ge is not a t ax, a const ructi ve tr ust on the pro ceeds ofthe Raci ng Acts w i l l noti nter fer e with the st at e’ s co l l ecti on o fta x re venue, and the Tax I nj uncti on Act does not apply. There i s no j uri sd ict ional bar to t h e c o n st ru c tiv e-t ru st cla im an d n o jur isd ict ion al b as is to de ny the c as i no s’ mot i o n f o r a pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n. 932 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 com m erc ial com peti tor’ s tax burd en. ” Id. at 23 27
. B eca u se L ev in was a fede ra l c ons t i t ution al c hal l en ge t o the val i di t y of O hio ’ s natu ral-ga s taxatio n sch em e b ro u g ht a g ain st the state taxin g au tho rity , it enta iled “th e v e r y in terferen ce in state tax ati on the c om ity d o ct ri n e aim s to avoid. ” Id
. at 2335. In con trast, here, the ca sino s’ suit w ill n o t interfere w ith Illino is’ coll ect ion ofs tat e t ax r evenue. C. Pr ecl usio n and A bstent i on I n the dist ri ct c ourt, the ra cetr acks advan ced se ver al al ternati ve re asons to di sm i ss the c onst ructi ve- tr ust cl ai m and deny pre l i m i naryi njun c ti ve re l i ef, and they r ei te r at e th es e ar g um en ts o n a ppea l
. The s co pe o fo ur r e v i e w o fa n i nt e rl o c ut o r y o r de r u nd e r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 12 92 ( a) ( 1) e xt en ds to a r g um en ts tha t “b ea r upo n a nd ar e ce ntra l to the gr ant ordeni alo fthe i nj uncti on. ” Sh a ffer v. G lobeProt. , Inc. , 721 F. 2d 1121 , 1124 ( 7th Cir
. 1983 )
. These add i ti onalar gum ents provi de an al ternati ve b asis o n w hi ch to affi rm and ar e there f or e pr oper l y b efo re us. See M un a

f v. G eren , 55 3 U.S
. 674, 69 1 ( 2008 ) ( “Revi ew o f a pre l i m i naryi nj uncti on ‘ i s no t co nfined to the a ct o f gran ting th e inj un ctio[n], bu t e x t e n d s as w ellto det erm in in g w h et h er th er e is an y in s u p er ab le ob j ec tio n, in poi nt o fj uri sdic tio n orm er i ts, to the m ai ntenance of [ the] bi l l, and, i fso , to d i re cti ng a fi nal decr ee dism issi ng i t.’ ” (ci tations om itted ))
. W e s tar t with the precl usi on a rgum ent. Fe deralco urts m ust g i ve sta te- cour t j ud gm ents the s am e pr ecl usi ve effect they w oul d have in sta te cour t. P a rsons St e e l, Inc . v. Fi rs tAl a. Bank, 474 U.S
. 51 8, 51 9 ( 1986 ) ; 28 U
. S. C. § 1 738.N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 33 Under I l l i no i s l aw “[ t] he do ct rine of re s judicat a pro vi des thata fi nal j ud gm ent o n the m er i ts re nd ered by a co ur t o fc o m pet en t j ur i sdi ct i o n b ar s an y s ubs eque nt acti ons between the sam e par ti es orthei r pri vi es on the s am e ca use o fact i on. ” Hu d s o n v . C i tyo f C h i c ago , 88 9 N
. E
. 2d 210, 213 (I ll
. 2008 ) (q uo tation m arks om itted ). Res j ud i cata r equi re s: ( 1) a fi nal st ate
- cour t j ud gm ent o n the m er i ts; ( 2) i denti ty of c au se ofact i on; and ( 3) i denti ty of p ar tie s o r th eir p riv ies
. Id. R es j u d i c a ta ba rs n oton ly i ssues thatwere actual ly l i ti gat ed i n the pri orpro ce edi ng b uta l so i ss ue s th atc o ul d ha ve b ee n r ai se d b ut w er e no t. R iver P a rk, Inc
. v. C ity o f H igh la nd P a rk, 70 3 N
. E. 2d 88 3, 8 89 ( I l l
. 1 99 8)
. Tha t i s, “ [ t] he do ct r i ne ex te nds no t o nl y to what was ac tu al l y dec i ded i n the or i gi nal act i on, but al so to m att ers w hi ch co uld have b ee n d ec id ed in t h at su it
. ” Re i n v . Dav i d A. Noy e s & Co. , 665 N
. E
. 2d 1199, 1204 (I ll
. 1996). The s ta te s upr eme c o ur t’ s dec i si o n r ej ec tingthe co nsti tuti onalchal l enges to the 20 06 Raci ng Act does not h av e re s jud ica ta effe c t h er e; th e c laim s a n d p ar tie s in th e two s ui ts a r e m at er i al ly d i ffer en t. In Gian nou l i as the casinos chal l enged the va l i dity o fthe 2006 Raci ng Act unde r v ar i o us pr o vi si o ns o fthe I l l inoi s Con st i tu ti o n a nd th e Ta k i ng s Cl au se o f th e fede r al co ns ti tu ti on. The const ructi ve- tr ust cl aim , i n contr ast, i s ba sed o n al l ega ti ons ofa cri m i nal pay- to- pla y c onspi ra cy that has unj ustl y e nri ched the r acet ra cks at the c asi nos’ expense. I nd eed, the al l ega ti ons ofpol i ti calco rr up ti on a t the r oo t ofRI CO

- consp iracy and constr ucti ve- tr ust cl ai m s di d not eve n com e t o l i gh t u nti l Decem ber20 08

— si x months a ft erthe I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t del i ver ed i ts deci si on i n G i ann oul i as . The cl ai m s a l so i nvol ve differ ent par ti es.34 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

The r ac et ra c ks ar gue thatI l l i noi s l aw does notdi s t i ngui s h f or 10 res j ud ic ata p urpo se s betw een an i nter venor and an ori ginal (co n tin u ed ...) The c o ns ti tu ti o na l c ha l l en g e was b r o ug hta g ains t th e st at e tr easu re r a nd the I l l i no i s Ra cingBo ar d; the const ructi ve- tr u st cl ai m i s br ought aga i nst the r acetr ac ks , an d th e R IC O cla im on w h ich it is b as ed is aga i nst J ohnsto n, Bal m or al, M ayw oo d, and Fri ends of Blag oj evic h . It woul d have m ade no sense f orthe casinos to n am e any o fthe se de fen dan ts i n the i r c o ns ti tu
ti onalchal l enge to the 2 006 Raci ng Act. The r ac et r ac k s at te m pt to f as hi o n a r es j udi ca ta a r g um en t ar o und the W i l l C ounty c o ur t’ s o r derde ny i ng the i r pe t i t i o n f o r po s tj ud g men t r e l i e f, whi c h wa s ba sed o n s o m e o fthe i nf o r m at i o n made pub l i c bythe U.S. Attor ne y i n the fede r alpr o se cut i o n o fBl ag oj ev i cha nd i n the i m pea ch m en t pr o ce eding s ag ains t hi m . But postj ud gm ent pr oce edi ngs a re l i m i ted i n sco pe to th e u n d e r l y i n g c as e; th e p u rp os e o f a § 2 -14 01 p et itio n is to bring to the c ou rt’ s a tte nti on f acts thathad they been known atthe ti m e o fj u d gm ent woul d have p re c lu d ed its en tr y. P eop le v. Ha yn es , 73 7 N
. E.2 d 169, 18 2 ( I l l
. 20 00)
. A § 2- 1401 peti ti on i s a n alo go u s to a m oti on f o r rel i effr o m j udg m en t unde r Rul e 60 ( b) ( 2) o fthe Fe d er al R u les of C ivil P ro c ed u re . See In r eM ar r i ageof Wolff , 82 2 N .E
. 2d 596, 60 4 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 20 05)
. Li ke a m oti on m ade under the federal r ule , a § 2

- 1401 peti ti on i s n o ta v e h i c l e t o b r i n gn e w c l a i ms

— let alo n e e n t i re ly di ffer en t claims a g ains t par ti es tha t i nt er ve ne d i n the ac ti o n a fterthe o r i g i na l j ud g men twa s e nt e r e d. 10N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 35

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 par t y. How eve r, the y c i t e onl y c as es i n whi c h i nt erve ni ng p la in tiffs w ere b arr ed fro m b ring ing sub sequ en t, relate d suits aft erthe y h ad lo st. The y c i t e no author i t y f or the pr opos i t i on tha t res jud icata b ars su b sequ en t, d ifferen t claim s ag ain st d efen d an ts who i nt e r ve ne d af te rthe o rig ina l jud g m en t. A br i efl oo k a t how the W i l l County j ud ge tr eat ed the § 2

- 1 4 0 1 p e t i t i o n s ho ws tha tthe r ul i ngdo e s n o tpre cl ud e thi s federa l action
. Fi rs t, the j ud ge did notaddress th e al l eg ed cr i m i na l s ch eme inv o l vingBl ag oj ev i ch, J o hns to n, an d th e r ac et r ac k s o n th e m er i ts
. I nstead , s he rej ecte d the “ne w ev i d en c e” out o fhand because i t was unrel ate d to the underl yi ng co nsti tuti onalchal l enge. T h e jud ge h e l d t h at im p ro p er m ot ive w as n ota b as is on whi ch to i nv al i dat e th e 20 06 Ra cing Act. The cou rt also rej ecte d m ost of the evid en ce s u b m it ted i n su p p ort ofthe peti ti on

— th e F BIa g en t’ s affi dav i t, s upe r se di ng i nd i ctm ent, and w i re tap tr anscr i pts

— as ina d m iss ible he ar sa y unr el at ed to the c as e an d i nv o l vingdi ffer en t parti es. T h e j u d ge sai d that e ven i fshe w er e incl i ned to cre ditthe al l ega ti ons ofcorr up ti on, theywould have no e ffe c t o n th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f th e 2 0 0 6 Ac t a nd t hus n o e ffe c to n th e fi n a l j u d g m en t

— whi chi s, a fte r a l l, the l i m i te d pur po se o fa § 2

- 14 01 pe ti ti o n. The ra cetr acks ci te StateFarm Ill inois Fe deral Credi t U nio n v . H a yes , 41 6 N
. E.2 d 703 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 19 81) , wh i ch th eys aye st ab l i sh es the r es j udi ca ta e ffec t o fde ci si o ns on § 2- 1401 peti ti ons. But Ha yes was part of a l i ne ofcas es hol ding that § 2

- 1401 deci si ons have re s j ud i cata effect ons uc ces s i ve§ 2-1 40 1 p et i t ion s, noto n enti re l y new36 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

The R acetracks al so c it e L u b b er s v . N o rfo lk& Wes te rn R a il- 11 w ay, 47 3 N. E. 2d 9 55 ( I l l
. 19 84 ) , a c as e i n whi c h the I l lino is Supr em e Cour t re m ande d with i ns t ru c t i ons t o al l ow a p lainti ffto am end a § 2- 1401 peti ti on to i nclude an add iti onal c l ai m . Buti n L u bb ers the cl aim to be ad ded

— a c ountas s er t i ng “w il ful and w anton” m is condu ct

— w as j oined to a neg li gence c l ai m on l y a ft eri tha d bec om e c l ea r thatthe defen dantwon th e c a se b ec a u se it h a d co n ce a le d k ey ev id en ce . Id. at 95 9 -60. A t m o st, L u b bers sho w s that rel atedcl aim s againstthe s a me (co n tin u ed ...) ac tio n s filed ag ain st d i f f e re n t p ar tie s. Se e, e . g. , Vi l l
. of Gle nvi e w v. B uschel m an , 6 9 3 N. E. 2 d 1 2 4 2 ( I l l
. App
. Ct. 19 98) (“T h e [I l l i n ois ] su p re m e c ou rt ’s d ec isio n s in D eck a rd v . Join er, 44 I l l
. 2d 412, 41 8- 19, 25 5 N
. E.2 d 900 ( 1970 ) , a nd i t s p r o g e nyh a v e s t e a di l y h e l d tha tr e pe a t ed [ § 2- 1401 peti ti ons] ar e prohibi ted, as th ey unnecessaril y fr us trate th e po li cy o f bringing finali ty to cou rt proce edi ngs. ”)
. The r eas on f or t hi s r ule i s obvi ous: I t cut s do w n on the was te o fj udi ci alr es o ur ce s bypr ev en ting l i ti g an ts fr o m pl y i ngc o ur ts wi ththe s ame losing a r g um ents aga i n and again. The r ule has no a pp l i cati on her e. The ra cetr acks al so ci te Bur ni cka v. M ar q ue t t eNat i onal Bank, 43 1 N
. E.2 d 358, 36 0 ( I l l
. 19 82) , wh i ch hel d that a § 2- 1401 pet i ti o n f o r r el i ef fr o m j udg m en t i s th e “fi l i ng of a ne w a c t i o n. ” Bu tthi s s ho r to pi ni o n had no thingt o do w i th res judica ta; i t m er el y hel d that a peti ti on f or re l i ef fro m j ud gm ent ( f or m er l y a m oti on m ade under § 7 2 o fthe I l l i noi s Ci vi l Pra cti ce Act) sho uld b e tre ate d as a new acti on f or p u rp oses o fthe 30- day window f orappealo fa fi nal j ud gm ent. Id. 11N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 37

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 11 d efend an t m ay be br ought in a § 2- 14 01 pe t i t i on; i tdoe s no t stan d f or the b ro ad p ro p osition tha t u n relat ed claim s ag ain st di f f e r e ntd efend an ts m u st be bro ught i n a § 2- 14 01 pe t i t i on. And itce rt a in ly does not m ean that the f ail ure t o bring such unrelat ed clai m s operates as res j ud ic ata. Insu m , ne ith er th e Illino is Su p re m e C o u rt ’s d ec isio n in G ia nn o ulia s northe deci si on denyi ng the c asi nos’ § 2- 1401 peti ti on has r es j ud i cat a effect on the co nstr ucti ve- tr ust o r RI CO cl ai m s he r e. The cl ai m s wer e no t dec i ded and co ul d no t ha ve b ee n rai se d i n the a ct i o n c ha l l en g i ng th e c on st itu tio n alit y of t h e 2 00 6 R ac in g A c t. SeeRein , 665 N
. E.2 d at 1 204. Fo r the s am e r eas on s, the s tat e cour t’ s deci sion r ej ecting the cas i nos’ co nsti tuti onal ch all en ge to the 2008 A ct h as no res j ud icata effect ei th er. H avi ng concl ud ed that re s j ud i cata does not ap p l y, we h a v e l i t t l e t r o u b l e h o l d i n gth a tth e c a s i n o s ’ c l a i ms ar e no t ba rr ed by col l ate ra l es toppel
. U nd erI l l i noi s l aw th e “ m in im u m req u ire m en ts ” fo r a p p l ica tio n of co ll ate ra l es toppelar e: (1) t h e is su e d ec id ed in t h e p rior ad j u d i c at ion is id en t ica l w ith th e o n e p re se n te d in t h e s u it in questi on, ( 2) ther e was a fi nal j ud gm en t on the m er i ts i n the pri or adj ud i cati on, and ( 3) the party ag ain st w hom es toppeli s ass er ted was a par ty ori n pri vi ty wi tha pa r tyt o the pr i o r a dj udi ca ti o n. G um m a v. White, 83 3 N
. E.2 d 834 , 8 43 ( I l l
. 20 05)
. Because th e is su es d ec id ed in t h e st at e-c ou rtco n st itu tio n al c h allen ge s are d iffer en t from th e issu es to b e d ec id ed in38 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 thi s federa l r acke tee ring sui t, co llate ra l es toppeldoes not apply. Rel ate dly, w e a l so rej ect the r acet ra cks’ co ntenti on that abst enti on i s warr anted under the C o lo r a d o R iver doctr in e. See C o lo rad o R iver Wa ter C o nserv a tio n D ist
. v . U nited St a tes , 42 4 U.S
. 80 0 ( 1976 )
. The r acet ra cks m ai ntai n that C o lo rad o R iver appl i es b ec au se the sui t ch al l en g i ngthe const i tuti onal i ty ofthe 2 00 8 A ct s uiti s s ti l l winding i ts w ay th ro u gh th e Illino is c ou rt s. Colorado R i v er abst enti on i s e xerci sed spar i ngl y a nd i s o nl y a pp ro pri ate wh en “ther e i s a subst anti allikelihoo d that the [ sta te- cour t] l i ti g at i o n wi l l di spo se o fa l l c l ai m s pr es en ted i n the federa l ca se . ” TruSe rv Corp. v. Flegles, Inc. , 41 9 F
. 3d 584, 592 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05 ) (c i tat i on o m i tte d). Thi s wil l o nl y b e th e c as e w h en th e s ta te an d f e d e ra l ac tio n s a re “p ar allel” ; ab se n t t h at, C o l o r a do R iver abst enti on i s inapp l i cabl e. Id. As s ho ul d b e o b v i o us b y n o w, the s t a t e a nd fe der al a c tio n s a re n otp ar alle l. C o lo rad o R iverabs tenti on does not apply.

D . Failure to S tate a C on structive-Tru st Claim Fi nal l y, the ra cetr acks ar gue that the cas i nos have faile d to st at e a co n s t r u c tiv e-t ru st cla im . Th is is ac tu al l y a b ac k do o r c ha ll en ge to the s uffi ci en cyo fthe RI CO a l l e g a t i o ns ; the c o ns t r uc t i v e - t r us tc l a i m i s not an i nd ependent basi s forl i abi l i ty but i nstea d seek s a n equi tabl e r em edy f orthe und er l yi ng RI CO vi ola tio n to pr e v e ntthe r a c e t r a c k s fr o m be i ng unj us t l y e nr i c he d. Balm or al an d M ay w oo d

— the r acet ra cks J ohnsto nN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 39

o wns

— ar g ue tha t we s ho uld affi r m the di smi ss alo fthe co ns truct i ve - trus t cl ai m b ec au se the c o nduc t under l y i ng th e R IC O co u n t w a s n o t a p ro x im at e c au se of th e c as ino s’ i nj ur y . The c au se o fthe i nj ur y, the y a ss er t, i s th e d ra ftin g a n d en ac tm en t o f th e R ac in g A c ts by th e Illino is Gen er alAss embl y, not any co ns pi r ac y a m o ngthe RI CO de fen dan ts
. The y made th e sa m e ar g um en t i n the di st r i ctc o ur t i n s uppo r t o fthe i r mot i o n to d i smi ss the R I C O cou nt f or f ail ure to state a c la im
. Th e d istri ct cou rt rej ecte d i t, an d w e agree. T he casinos’ all egation s are suffi ci ent t o supp or t RI CO pro xi m ate cause . The S upr eme Co ur t has sa i d tha t when ev al ua ting proxi m ate causa ti on under RICO, “the ce ntra l questio n . . i s w h et h er th e alle ge d vio lat ion led d ire c tly to the pl ai nti ff’ s inj uri es. ” Anza v. Id e al St e e l Su pply Corp. , 547 U
. S. 45 1, 46 1 ( 2006 )
. A RI CO p lai nti ffm ust s how that the pr edi cate o ffen se “no t o nl y was a ‘ but f or ’ cause of h is inju r y , b u t w as th e p ro x im at e c au se as w ell
. ”He mi G r o up , LLC v. C ityof N ew Yo rk, 1 3 0 S
. Ct
. 9 8 3 , 9 8 9 ( 2010 ) ( quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed)
. W ha t th i s m ea ns i s that the l i nkb etwee n the a l l eg ed RIC O c o ns pi r ac y a nd the pl ainti ff’ s i nj ur y mustno t be “ to o r emot e, ” o r “p urel y c o nti ngent, ” o r “i nd i re c[ t]
. ” Id. ( citation om itted ). The c as i no s al l eg e th e f o l l o wi ng : tha t th e 20 06 a nd 20 08 R ac in g A c ts w er e t h e p ro d u c t o f a c or r u p t b ar ga in between Bl ago j evi ch and J ohnsto n; thatBl agoj evi ch so l i ci te d a nd J o hns to n pa i d l ar ge sum s o fmone y t o the g o ve r no r ’ s ca m pai g n c o m m i tt ee i n e xc ha ng e f o r the gov er nor ’ s infl uenc e in ge tting the Raci ng Acts passe d an d fo r si gni ng the m i nto l aw ; thatBl agoj evi ch40 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

Th e cas i no s be l i e ve tha tthe s e a r gu m e nt s h a ve be e n wai ve d. 12 T he y w ere not w aiv ed
. T he arg u m en ts w ere raised , w ith m ino r v aria tion , in H aw tho rn e’s b riefing in d istrict cou rt. del i ver ed on thi s a gr eem ent; and that by oper ati on o f these two co rr up ti on- tainted l aw s, theyar e for c ed to turn o ver3% o f thei r profi ts to the r acet ra cks. These al l ega ti ons sta te a di re ct l i ne o f c au sat i on. The cas i nos’ i nj ur y i s no t to o r emot e fr o m the c o ns pi r ac y ; to the c o nt r a r y, the o bj e c t o f the c o ns pi r a c y wa s t o pu t m oney in B lagoj evich ’s pock et (or in hi s c am p aign com m ittee’s coffer s) i n exchange f orthe enri c h m ent o fthe ra cetr acks at th e c asino s’ expense vi a the enac tm ent a nd si gni ng o f th e R ac in g A c ts . Th e c as in os ’ inju ry flow ed d ire c tly f r o m th e c o n s p i r a c y, o r s o a r e a s o n ab l e j u r y c o u l d c o ncl ud e. A rl i ngto n, Fa i rm ount, and H aw thor ne m ake two se par at e ar g um en ts r el at i ngt o the l eg als uffi ci en cyo fthe const ructi ve- tr ust c lai m . They c onte nd thatthe const ructi ve - trus t cl ai m was pr o per l y di sm i ss ed be ca us e ( 1) the const i tuti onal i ty of th e Racing Acts has al re ady be en up hel d by the st ate co urts ; and ( 2) a const ructi ve tr ust w ou ld be an i m p erm issible attack on th e state-cou rt j udg m en ts
. The se a r e va r i at i o ns o n th e pre cl us i o n a r g u-

12 m en ts e ar l i erdi sc us se d, a nd we r ej ec t th em f o r r ea so ns that ar e bynow fa m i l i ar

— na m ely, tha t th e st at e-a nd federa l

- cour t a cti ons i nvol ve differ ent c l ai m s a nd part i es. A co nstr ucti ve tr ust is “ an equi tabl e r em edy i m posed by a co urt to preve nt the unj ust e n richm ent o fa party th ro u gh ac tu al fra u d or b re ac h o f a fid u c iar y re lat ion sh ip .”N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 41

For thi s argu m en t the race tr acks ci te In reLi qui dat i on , 13 w hich held tha t a cou rt of e qu ity h as no p ow er “to d ispe nse w ith (co n tin u ed ...) In reLi q ui dat i on of

Se c. Cas
. Co. , 5 37N .E .2d 77 5, 78 2 (Ill. 19 89 )
. The ca sino s m ay pr o ve th at th e r ac et r ac k s w ere unj us tly enrich ed by the RICO cons p iracy w ithou t referen c e t o th e c on st itu tio n alit y of t h e R ac in g A c ts . Th eir cl aim he r e i s th atthe Act s ar e ta i nt ed byc o r r upt i o n, n otth at th ey are u n c on st itu tio n al. I n a di ffer ent tw ist on the sa m e a rgum ent, the ra cetr acks m ai ntain that the c onst ructi ve-tru st cl ai m cannot proce ed beca use the st ate co urts have deter m i ne d that th e ca sino s m us t pa y t he s ur ch ar g e an d tha t th ey( th e ra cetr acks ) ar e e nti tl ed to r ecei ve the pr oce eds fro m the Horse Raci ng F und
. The st ate
- cour t orders do not spe akqui te s o b r o adl y . The s ta te c o ur ts di smi ss ed th e ca sino s’ s ui ts unde r the Pr o te stM o ni es Act a nd o r der ed th e st at e tr ea su r ert o t r an sferthe m o ne y t o the H or se Raci ng F und
. Fr om there the Racing Acts functi oned

— and conti nue to functi on

— nor m al l y. A n or der from the d istri ct cou rt i n th is case w ou ld n ot d isturb th es e s ta te -c ou rtj u d gm en ts . A co n st ru c t i ve tru st w ou ld o per at e o n the s pec i ale sc r o w ac co untno w ho l di ng th e m one y d i sb ur se d fr o m the Hor se Ra cingF und. The T R O is st ru c tu re d so th at it d oe s n otenj oin th e Illino is Treas urerfro m per f or m i ng ac ti ons presc ribed by state law or requ ired by sta te-cou rt order. Fi nal l y, th e r acet ra cks sugge st that a co nstr ucti ve tr ust w oul d, i n ess ence, r epealthe Raci ng Acts

— an act i on a fede r alc o ur t o bv i o us l y ha s no a utho r i tyt o t ak e. But 1342 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 13 the plain r equire m ents ofa s tatute. ” In re L i qu i dati on o f Sec. C as. C o. , 5 3 7 N .E .2d 77 5 , 78 2 (Ill. 1 9 8 9 ) (qu o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed ). In that c ase , the def rau ded s hareholders ofan i nsurance c ompa ny s ou gh tt o pl a c e a c ons tr ucti ve t r us to n the pr oc e e ds of a st ock of feri ng; the court held that thi s rem ed y w a s p rec l ude d b y the e x c l us i ve s c he m e o fthe I l l i no is Insur a nc e Co de gov er ni ng the di s t r ibu t i ono fa s s e t s fr om a l i q ui da t ed in su re r’s e s t a t e. Id. at 781- 82. The cas e does no m ore than illustra te the u nr em a r k a b le p rinc ip le tha t a cou rt of equ ity cannot i nvalidate a “com prehensi ve st atutory s chem e. ” Id. at 781. This princi ple i s not i m plic ated here
. a co nstr ucti ve tr ust o n the d isb u rs em ents re cei ved fro m th e H o r se Ra cing F und woul d ne i th er nul l ify the R ac in g A c ts n o r u n d o th e s ta te -c ou rtj u d gm en ts . Tr u e, it w oul d preventthe ra cetr acks fro m r ecei vi ng paym ents fro m th e Fu nd , but onl y b ecause the casinos w i l l have pro ven that they were unj ustl y e nric h ed by the RI CO co nspir acy

— no t th atthe Ra cingAct s o r a ny o r de r e nt e r e d b y a s t a t e c o ur twa s i nv a l i d. Forthe f oreg oi ng r eas ons, we R EV ERSE the dist ri ct cour t’ s o rderd enyi ng Bl agoj evi ch’s cl ai m o fl egi sl ati ve i mm un i t y a nd R EMA ND w i th i nstr ucti ons to d ism i ss hi m fro m the ca se . W e a l so R EV ERSE the d istri ct cou rt’s or der di sm i ssing the co nstr ucti ve- tr ust cl ai m f orl ack of j ur i sdi ct i o n, de ny i ngpr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti ve r el i ef, a nd diss ol vin g th e TRO. The case i s R EMAND ED f orfurther p ro c ee d in gs co n sis te n t w ith th is o p i n ion . Th e T R O sh all re m ai n i n effect.N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 43 P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e, di ssenting. Idi sa g r ee wi ththe d eci si on i n tw o re spects that m er i t ai ring i n a p u b lic d iss en t. T h e fi r s t is w h et h er ex -G ov er n or B lag ojev ich is en ti tl ed to l eg i sl at i ve i m m uni tyi n th is R I CO s ui t, a s th e m aj o r i tyb el i ev es , a nd the s ec o nd i s whethe r, a s th e m aj or i ty does not bel i eve , the Tax Inj uncti on Act, 28 U
. S. C. § 1 341, bar s the di str i ct c ourtfro m im p os i ng a co ns truct i ve t r us t i n f av or of the c as i no pl aint i ff s o n the m o ne y r ec ei ve d b y the r ac et r ac k s unde r the 2 00 6 an d 2008 I l l in ois st atute s that i m pose a 3 per cent exci se tax on th e c as in os an d req u i r e t h a t t h e p ro c ee d s b e p lac ed in a se g r eg at ed st at e fund

— th e “ H or se Raci ng Equity Tr us tF un d”

— an d then prom ptl y di sburs ed to the ra cet r a c k s t o b e us e d a s pr e s c r ib e d b y the s t a t ut e s . I l l
. Pub. A ct 9 4- 804, effecti ve M ay 26, 2 00 6; I l l
. Pub. A ct 9 5- 1008 , effecti ve Dec. 15 , 20 08. I t i s s uffi ci entl y uncerta in whethe r Bl ag oj ev i chi s en ti tl ed to i m m un ityt o war r an t cer ti fyi ng the q uesti on t o the S up re m e Cour t o fI l l i noi s. B ut there is no d ou bt th at th e Ta x Inj un ction A ct bars the i m posi ti on bya federa l d i str i ct courtof a co nstr ucti ve trus t o n r ev en ue s fr o m the c as i no t ax . 1. W h e n a sta te em p loyee i s su ed i n fed eral court f orvi ol ating a federa l st atute , wh etherhe i s i m m une fro m sui t byvi rtue o fhi s o ffi ci alst at u s is a quest i on o ffedera l l a w , or d in ar ily fed er al c om m on law
. Sup r e m eCour tof Virginia v. Co nsum ers U nion of the U nite d S ta tes, Inc. , 44 6 U .S. 71 9, 73 2 (1 98 0); U nite d S ta te s v . Gillock, 44 5 U.S
. 36 0, 37 2 n . 1 0 (19 80 ); B rya nt v . Jones , 57 5 F
. 3d 1281 , 13 04 (11 th C ir. 20 09 ); Fowler

- Nas h v
. D e m oc r at i c Caucu s of Pe nnsylv a nia Ho use o

f R epresen ta tiv es , 4 69 F. 3d 328, 33 0- 31 ( 3d C ir. 20 06 ); Nat i onal As s ’ n o f So ci al Worke rs v. Harwood, 6944 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 F. 3d 622, 629 ( 1st Cir
. 1995 )
. W er e the scop e o f offi ci al i m m uni ty det er m i ne d by st at e l aw, a st at e co ul d prev en t the federa l co u rt s fro m enf or ci ng federa l st atute s, such a s R I CO

— wh i c h a r e fr e qu e n t l y e nfo r c e d a g a i n s te mp loy ee s o f st at e o r loc al g ov er n m en t, e.g ., U nit e d Sta tes v . G e n o va , 3 3 3 F .3d 75 0 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom ps on , 685 F.2d 99 3 (6 th C ir . 1 98 2) (e n ba n c ); U nited St at e s v. Lo ng, 65 1 F.2d 23 9 (4t h C i r . 1 98 1); U nited Sta tes v . B a k er, 61 7 F
. 2d 1060 ( 4th Ci r. 19 80)

— to the full ex te nti nt en ded byCo ng r es s. W ha t i s unus ua l abo ut thi s ca se is that the S tat e o fI l l i noi s a pp ear s t o gi ve i ts gov er nor s l ess i m m unity th an the federa l co m m on l aw m i g ht o th er wi se do ; an d why sh o ul d fede r al co urts grant defe nd ants w ho ar e sta te em plo yee s a br oadero ffi ci al im m u n i t y th an th os e d efe n d an ts w ou ld be en tit led to if sued und erst ate l aw ? The i nter esti n gi vi ng st ate offi cer s i m m unit y fro m sui t i s a st ate i nter est
. I fa sta te pla ces no va l ue o n that in te re st i n a par ti cul arse tting, su cha s a su i t a g ains t th e st at e’ s g o ve r no r, the r e i s no re aso n f ora federa l co urt, enf or c in g a federa l st atute , to gr ant the st ate o ffi ci ali m m unity fro m sui t. I n Jorge nse n v. Blag ojevi ch , 811 N
. E. 2d 65 2 ( I l l
. 2 00 4) , the Su p re m e C o u r t of Illin ois h ad to d ec id e w h et h er a su it on be hal fo fthe sta te’ s j ud ges co uld be m ai n ta in ed ag ains t th e g o ve r no r, who ha d v et o ed a bi l l g r an ting the j ud ges a cos t- of

- l i vi ng i ncre as e. T h e co urt rul ed that the g ove rno r w as not enti tl ed to l egi slat i ve i m m unity. ( The cour t w ent on to hol d, on the m er i ts, that the veto vi ol ate d a pro vi si on o fthe Il l i noi s co nsti tuti on that f orbade r educing j ud ges ’ com pensati on, because the co stof-li ving increa se ha d vested and thu s becom e a pa rtN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 45 ofthei r com pensati on an d ther ef or e co uld notbe re sc i n d e d
. Id. at66 5- 66. ) The r uling o n i m m unity was su r pr i singb ec au se th e Gov erno r o fI l l i no i s, l i k e th e Pres iden t of th e U nited States, i s e ffectively a third bra n c h o f th e legi slature by virtue of his veto pow er. B oga n v. S co tt-Harris , 523 U .S. 44 , 55 (1 99 8); Edwards v. U nited Sta tes , 2 8 6 U. S
. 4 8 2 , 4 9 0 ( 1 9 3 2 )
. An d s o when a gov er nor i s perf or m i ng hi s l egi sl ati ve ro l e, as Gover nor Bl ag oj ev i chwas do i ngw he n he v et o ed th e co st
- o f

- l i ving b ill, h e is

— o r s o o ne mightthi nk

— e n t i t l e d t o th e s a me i m m unity a s l egi sl ato rs . T h at is th e g en er al ru le, B a rak a v. M cG reevey, 48 1 F
. 3d 18 7, 19 6 -98 (3d C ir. 20 07 ); To rres-R ivera v. C a lderó n-S erra , 41 2 F .3d 2 0 5 , 2 12 -13 (1s t C ir. 20 05 ); Wom en’s E m ergency Netw o rk v . B ush , 323 F.3d 93 7, 95 0 (1 1t h C ir. 20 03 ); cf. Bogan v. Scott- Harris , sup ra , 523 U
. S. at 55 ( m ayo r) , but i t m ay not be th e ru le i n Illi nois after Jo rgen sen . Th e o p in ion sa id th at the sui t di d not s eek“t o hol d the Gove rno r pers o na l l y l i ab l e f o r h i s a c t i o ns , n o r a r e [ the j ud g e s] att empt i ngt o f o r c e h i m t o t a k e o r t o r e fr a i n fro m tak i ng anyp arti cul aract i on. H e was nam ed i n the l i ti gati on be cause he was one ofthe sta te offi ci al s invol ved i n the sequence ofthe eve nts which l ed to t h e failu re o f th e J ud ges to r ecei ve thei r” co st- of

- l i vi ng i ncre ase . 81 1 N
. E.2 d at 6 66. B u t the j ud gm ent nul l i fi ed hi s l egi sl ati ve act

— the v eto

— and the opi ni on goe s on to note that “exam ple s o fI l l i noi s g ove rno rs being j oi ned as defendants i n case s see ki ng decl ar ato ryan d i nj uncti ve re l i efbas ed on a l l ege d vi ol ati ons ofst ate co nsti tuti onal and l ega l r equi re m ents ar e co m m onpla ce. ” Id
. P re si dents an d g o ve r no r s ar e r o ut i ne l y enj o i ne d from e nf o r cing46 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019

unc o ns ti tu ti o na l s ta tu te s, b ut

— preci sel y b ecause such sta tutes can be enj oi ned

— i t woul d b e ex tr emel y o dd t o s ue a Pr es i den t o r a gov erno r f o r ha vings i g ne d a n un co nsti tuti onalbi l l i nto l aw ; h i s act would be har m l ess . I fsuch a su it i s what Jo rgen sen per m i ts, the Suprem e Cour t o f I l l i noi s has m od ified tr adit i onall egi sl ati ve i m m unity. The opi ni on g oes o n t o stat e that “ i n I l l i noi s, l egi sl ati ve i mm un i t y i s a ddr e s s e d in” a c o ns t i t ut i o na l a nd a st at u to ry p ro vis ion n eit h er of w h ich , th e c o u r t ru led , “is appli cabl e t o the Govern or .” Id. Thi s so unds l i k e th e re nunciat i on of a com m on l aw pow er to add to leg isl ati vel y s peci fi ed i m m unit i es. Bu t Jo rgen sen was an u n u su alcas e, and m ay not be appli cabl e t o our case . The l egislat ive act enj oi ned w as no t a st atut e, b uta v et o b y the g o ve r no r ; i fno t he , who w ou ld be su ed ? I f h e w ere grant ed i m m un ity, there w oul d be no w ay to null i fy hi s unconst i tuti onalact
. W e c a n not be certain, how ever, that th e I ll inois court w oul d confi ne Jo rgen sen to ve toe s. Legislati ve i m m unity is a b so lu te , Bog an v . S c ot t

- Har r is , s u p ra , 52 3 U.S
. at54

- 55; LakeCount ry E stat e s , Inc . v. TahoeRegi onal Pla nni ng A gency, 440 U .S. 39 1, 40 3-0 5 (1 97 9); Biblia Ab i e r t a v. Banks , 1 29 F
. 3d 8 99, 9 03

- 04( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) , a nd the pr es en t su i t ac cus es the g o ve rnor of h av i ngs i g ne d the r a c e t r a c k l e g i s l a t i o n b e c a u s e h e h a d b e e n b r ib e d t o do so. One can i m agine the Suprem e Cour t o fI l l i noi s, gi ven i ts ske pt icism abo ut gr anti ng a gov er norl egi sl ati ve i m m unity, h oldi ng tha t a go ver norhas onl y a qua lified i m m unity fo r hi s l egi sl ati ve acts

— an i m m unity that woul d no t sh i el d hi m fr o m b eings ue d fora cc ept i ngN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 47 bribes to si gn l aw s. The c ou rt m ight thi nk i t o dd that w er e Bl agoj evi ch c on victe d fo r cri m i nal act s that in c lu d ed th e ra c e t r ac k b rib e h e c ou ld n otbe su ed civ illy f orthe sam e a cts. I t i s t ru e th at the f

e de r al co m m on l aw o fl egi sl ati ve i m m unity forst ate o ffi ci al s, sin c e iti s a n i m m unity fro m civ il su its , d oe s n otba r c rim in al a c t i o n s, w h ile bar ring ci vi l act i ons even i fbas ed on char ges o fcr i m i nal m isc on d u c t. U nite d Sta te s v . Gillock, sup ra , 44 5 U.S
. at37 2- 73. ( T he l egislati ve im m un ity of f e de r al legis lat or s is bro ader because o fthe Consti tuti on’ s “speech o r debate” c lau se . U .S. C on st . artI, § 6, c l. 1; U nite d State s v. G il lock, sup ra , 445 U .S. at 3 66 -73 ; In r e Wi t ne s s Bef ore Spe ci al G rand Jury 2000 -2 , 28 8 F.3d 28 9, 29 5 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); R om ero-B arce lo v. Her nand ez-Ago st o , 75 F. 3d 2 3, 30 (1st C ir. 1996).) Ot he rw ise th e im m u n ity w ou ld n otbe ab so lu te . Th e C ou rtin G il lock, i n re fusi ng to exte nd the i m m unity t o cri m i nal p ro se c u tio n s, re as on ed th at th e fe d er al i n te re st in en f o r cingfede r alc r i m i na l l aws i s g r ea te r tha n the interest i n en forcing civi l law s. B ut the Su p rem e C ou rt of Illino is giv es les s w eig h t t o th e le gis lat ive int er es t in i m m unity fro m ci vi l cas es than the federa l r u l e doe s. One do ubt s th er efo r e th atthe I l l i no i s co ur t woul d g r an t a g ove rno r abso l ute l egi sl ati ve i m m unity. I fthi s i s r i ght, we sh ou ld g i ve hi m no gr eat er im m un ityi n the na m e o ffede r alc o m m o n l aw. The S uprem e Cour t has sa i d that the di spl acem ent o fst ate l aw by fed eral com m on law i s “li m ited to situ ations w he re ther e i s a ‘ si gni fi cant c onfl i ct b etween som e federa l pol i cy ori nter estand the use o fstat e law
. ’ Our ca ses48 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 unif or m l y r equi re the exi ste n c e ofsuch a co nfl i ct a s a pr ec o ndi ti o n f o r rec ogn i ti o n o fa fede r alr ul e o fde ci si o n. N o t o nl y the pe rm issibi l i tyb uta l so the s co pe o fthe j udi ci aldi spl ac emento fs ta te r ule s tu r ns upo n s ucha confl i ct. ” O ’M el veney & M yers v. FD IC, 512 U
. S. 79 , 87- 88 ( 1994 ) ( ci tat i ons om i tted). “[ A ] co urt shoul d endeavor to fi l l the i nter sti ces offed er alr em edi alsche m es w i th unif or m federa l r ule s o nl y when the s chem e in questi on evi dences a di stinct nee d fo r nati onw i de l ega l st an dards, or w he n ex p ress p rovision s in analogou s statu tory sc h em es em b od y c on gr es sio n al p olic y c h oic e s re ad ily appli cabl e t o the m att erathand. Other w ise , we have i nd i cate d that federa l co urts sho uld ‘in c or pora t[ e] [ sta te l aw ] as the federa l rule o fdeci si on, ’ unl ess ‘ appli cati on o f [ the par ti cul ar ] st ate l aw [ i n questi on] would frust rate speci fi c o bj ecti ves ofthe federa l pro gr am s. ’ ” Kam e n v . Kem perFinanci a l Service s, Inc. , 50 0 U.S
. 90 , 98 ( 1991 ) ( ci tati ons om i tte d); se e a l so U nite d State s v. K im be ll Foods, Inc. , 44 0 U .S
. 7 15 , 728 (19 79 ); M i l l e rv . Il l i n ois Ce n t r al R. R. , 47 4 F .3 d 9 51 , 952 -53 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); FD I C v. Br ae m oor A ssoc ia tes , 686 F.2d 550 , 5 54 (7th C ir. 1982); com p are U nite d State s v. G il lock, 445 U
. S. 360 (1980). There i s no fed erali nter esti n gi vi ng the Governoro f Illino is a br oa d er im m u n ity from su it th an h e w ou ld enj oy i n an I l l i noi s s tat e cour t, j ust a s there i s no federa l i nter esti n enf or ci n g th e El eve nth A m endm ent i fa sta te deci des t o wa i v e i t s s o v e r e i g n i mm un i t y fr o m s ui t. Lapides v. B oard of Regents , 535 U
. S. 613, 618-20 (2002 ); Wi s co ns i n Dep’ tof

Cor r e ct i ons v. Schac ht, 524 U
. S. 38 1, 38 9 (1998); C la rk v . B a rna rd, 1 08 U. S
. 4 36 , 4 47( 18 83 )
. I t i s true th at state o ffi ci al s co nti nue to enj oy offi ci ali m m unityN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 49 i n federa l sui ts after a sta te i nd em ni fi es its o ffi ci al s. G r e e nb e rg v . Km e t ko , 9 22 F
. 2d 38 2, 3 84 ( 7th Ci r . 1991); Jawors kiv. Schm i dt, 68 4 F.2d 49 8, 50 0 (7 th C ir. 19 82 ); B uc k les v. K ing Co unty, 19 1 F
. 3d 1127, 11 36 ( 9th Ci r. 19 99) , jus t as a s tat e doe s no t l ose i ts Ele venth Am endm ent i m m unity f r o m s u i tb y h a v i n ga r i g h tt o b e i n d e mn i fi e d b y t he fed er al g ov er n m en t. R ege nts of U niversi ty of C alif ornia v. D oe, 51 9 U.S
. 42 5, 43 0- 31 ( 1997 ). S om e s tat es have deci ded , r atherthan gi vin g thei r em plo yee s i m m unity and thu s de ny i ngr e l i e ft o v i c t i ms o fthe e mpl o y e es’ t o r t s , t o ab r o g a t e i m m u n i t y b u ti n d e m n i fy th e i r e mplo yee s in case s in w hi ch the em plo yee s would have been i m m une. W e have not f ol l owed sui t w hen th e s tat e em p l o y ee i s su ed f o r a fede r alc i vi l r i g ht s vi o l at i o n, b ut that i s be cause 42 U .S.C. § 1988 ( a) r eve rs es i n such case s the rule of Kim b e l l Fo ods o fpre sum pti ve adopti on o fs t a t e l a w t o fu r n i s h th e c o n t e n to ffe d e r a l c o mmo n l a w. S e c tio n 19 88 (a) p ro vid es th at th e “ j u ris d ict ion in c ivil and cri m i nal m atter s c onfer re d on the dist ri ct c ourt s by th e [ fede r al ci vi l r i g ht s l aw]
. . . sh al l be ex er cised a nd enf or ced i n conf or m i ty w ith the l aw s o fthe U ni ted St ate s, so f aras such l aw s a re sui tabl e . . . ; but i n al l ca ses where the y a r e no t ada pte d t o the o bj ec t, o r a r e defi ci en t i n the provi si ons necess ar y t o furni sh sui table r em edi es and pu n ish offenses ag ai nst l aw , ” s tat e l aw shal l apply
. S ec ti o n 1 98 8( a) was fi r stenac ted as s ec ti o n 3 o fthe Civi l Ri ghts A ct o f18 66, 14 S tat
. 27, and i ts presum pti on infav or of fed er al r u l e s o f d ec isio n w as u n d ou b te d ly base d on co ncer ns abo ut so uthern h os ti l i ty to ci vi l r i ghts. I nt erp retati on of Jo rgen sen i s furtherco m pli cate d by th e fa cttha t th e su i t di d no t se ekda m ag es fr o m the50 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 gov er nor . Offi ci al i m m unity usual l y j ust m eans i m m unity fro m d am ag e s s u i ts
. P ullia m v. A llen , 46 6 U.S
. 52 2, 53 6- 38 (19 84 ); Sup r e m eCour tof Vi rgi ni a v. Cons um e rs U ni on of U nite d State s, Inc. , sup ra , 4 4 6 U. S
. a t 7 3 6

- 3 7 ; 1 3 D C h a r l e s A. W rig h t e t a l., Fed eral P rac tice an d P roc edu re § 3 573. 3, pp. 605- 06, 61 5- 16 ( 3d ed. 20 08) ; Davi d A chtenber g, “I m m unity Under4 2 U
. S
. C. § 1 98 3: Int er pr et i ve Appro ac h a nd the Se ar ch f orthe Legi sl ati ve W i l l, ” 8 6 Nw . U . L. R ev. 497, 51 6- 17 ( 1992 )
. But l egi sl ati ve im m unity c onfer s i m m unity fro m inju n c tiv e re lief as w ell, in Illin ois , Fletc h er v. City o f P aris , 35 N .E .2d 32 9, 33 2 (Ill. 19 41 ); Pe op l e ex re l. Hu e mp f n e rv . Be ns on , 1 28 N
. E. 387, 38 8 ( I l l
. 19 20) , as el sew h er e. Sup r e m eCour tof Virgin ia v. Cons um e rs U ni on of U nite d State s, Inc. , sup ra , 446 U .S. at 7 31 -34 ; Ea s t l and v. U ni t e d S t at es S ervic e m e n’s Fu nd, 42 1 U.S
. 49 1, 50 2- 03 (1975). Fo r all th es e re as on s , i t is u n c er ta inw h et h er Il lin ois gov er nor s e nj oy l egi sl ati ve i m m unity fro m suit

— th e o nl y k i nd tha t Bl ag oj ev i chi s c lai m i ng . Gi ve n the d elic ac y of t h e is su e a n d p ar tic u lar ly th e u n c er ta in sco pe ofthe Jo rgen sen o pi ni o n, the pr ude ntc o ur se f o r us i n thi s ca se w oul d b e to cer ti fy t o the S up re m e Cour t o f I l l i no i s, pur su an t to 7th C ir. R
. 5 2 an d I l l
. S
. Ct
. R. 2 0, the questi on wh etherthe com m on l aw o fo ffi ci ali m m u ni ty in Il l i noi s perm i ts a sui t to go f or w ar d a gainst a gov er norw hen the sui t i s ba sed o n hi s per f or m i ng a l egi sl ati ve act ( not l i m i ted to a veto) f ora cri m i nal purpose. 2. T h e T ax I nj uncti on Act f orbi ds federa l di str i ct c ourt s to “enj oi n, suspend orr es tr ain the ass ess m ent, l evyo r col l ecti on o fany tax under St ate l aw ,” provi ded thatanN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 51 adequate r em edy i s a vailabl e in the sta te cour ts. 28 U. S
. C. § 1 34 1. The Actha s been d es cr ibe d b y the Su p re m e C ou r t a s “firs t a n d fore m os t a ve h icle to lim it d rastically fede ral d istri ct cou rt j urisd iction t o i nt erfere w ith so i m port ant a l oca l co ncern as the c ol l ecti on o f t a xe s . ” Rose wel l v. La Sal l eNat ’ l Bank, 45 0 U.S
. 50 3, 52 2 ( 19 81 )
. The Co ur t i n Ex par t eYoung, 209 U
. S. 123 ( 1908 ) , had as a pra cti calm att erst ri pp ed away the state s’ so ver ei gn i m mu n i t y fr o m e q u i t ab l e s u i t s ; s o we r e i tn o tf o r the Tax I nj uncti on Act “ ‘ sta te tax a dm i ni st ra tion m i ght b e th r o wn i nt o di sa rra y, a nd t ax pay er s m i g hte sc ape the or dinar y pr oce du ra l r equi re m ents i m posed by sta te l aw . Duri ng the pen d en c y ofthe federa l sui t the co l l ecti on o fr ev en ue under the chal l enged l aw m i ght b e obstr ucted, with c onse quen t d am age to the St ate ’ s budget, and perhaps a sh ift t o the S tat e o fthe ri sk ofta xpayer i nsol vency. ’ ” Rose wel l v. La Sal l eNat ’ l Bank, sup ra , 450 U
. S. at5 27, quo ting P e r ez v . L e d e s ma , 401 U
. S. 82, 128 n. 17 ( 1971 ) ( separ ate o pini on) ; se e a l so Hi l l v . Ke mp , 47 8 F
. 3d 1236 , 1246

- 47 ( 10th C ir. 2 007). A nd “i t i s upon ta xati on that the s eve ra l S tat es chi efl y r el y t o obt ai n the m eans to ca r r y o n the i r r es pec ti ve g o ve r nm en ts , a nd i t i s o fthe utm osti m port ance t o al l o fthem thatthe m odes adopted to enf or ce the ta xes l evi ed shoul d be inter fer ed w ith a s li ttle as po ss ibl e. Any del ayi n the pr o ce eding s o fthe o ffi ce r s, upo n whom the dut y i s dev o l ve d o fc o l l ec tingthe ta xe s, m ay der an g e th e o per at i o ns o fg o ve r nm en t, a nd th er e b y c au se se riou s d et rim en t t o th e p u b lic
. ” Dow s v. City of Chi cago , 7 8 U. S
. ( 1 1 Wal l
. ) 1 0 8 , 1 0 9

- 1 0 ( 1 8 7 1 )
. Of cour se enj oi ni ng a parti cul arta x i s u n like l y t o “dera nge the o perat i ons ofgo ve rn m en t.” That was a bi t o f18 71-52 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 sty l e hyperbol e. But the Tax I nj uncti on Act i s no t l im i ted to “d er an gin g” ta x es , an d th e m ajorit y op in ion if it sta nd s m ay m ake the appli cati on o fthe A ct turn o n j ud g es’ gues ses con cern ing the i m p ortan ce of a parti cul arta x to the oper ati ons ofst ate go ver nm ent. M y c ol l eagues m ay have diffi c ulty t aking the questi on ofthe effect of th e Tax I nj uncti on Act i n thi s ca se ser i ousl y b ecause o fthe corr u p t o ri gi n ofthe casino t ax an d a c er tai n r i sibl e el ementi n the i dea o ft ax i ngo ne gam bl i ng busi ne ss t o subsi dize ano ther( the “ derange

m en t” qu es tio n ). B u t t h e c or ru p t o rig i n of th e t ax is i rr el evant
. The A ct woul d be thw ar ted i fa taxpayer coul d get a fed er alco urt to enj oi n a t ax cas e j ust bypre senting ev i dence ofco rru p ti on in the proce ss by w hi ch the t axi ng st atute h ad been enacte d. This has be en r eco gn ize d i n an alo go u s c on te x ts , see , e.g., C ity of Colum bia v. O m ni O utdoor Ad ver ti si ng, Inc. , 49 9 U.S
. 36 5, 374- 78 ( 1991 ) ( sta te i m m unity fro m federa l anti tr us t s uit s)

— n ot ab ly th at of ab so lu te im m u n i ty , Pie rs on v. Ray, 38 6 U. S
. 5 47, 5 53

- 54 ( 19 67 ) , a s Ipo i nted outi n di sc us singthe federa l (but m aybe notthe I l l i noi s) r u le on l egi sl ati ve i m m unity. Gam b l i ng ta xes a re notunusual; cas i no t axes m ay be, but the y ar e cer tainl y no t uni que. S ee I nd
. Code §§ 4- 33- 12- 1, - 6( b) ( 6) ; N
. J
. S tat. §§ 5: 12- 203( a) , - 205; cf
. M d. Code, St ate Gov’ t, §§ 9- 1A

- 27( a) ( 5) , - 29. They a re r ealta xes, not ser vi ce fees . The f act that the re venue fro m a parti cul ar ta x i s ea r m ar k ed f o r a pa r ti cul arpur po se i s ha r dl y unusual ; thi nk o fth e so ci alse curi ty tax. H or se ra ci ng, th e b en efic iar y of t h e c as in o t ax , i s a m ajor a c tiv ity inN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 53 I l l i noi s a nd o ne with consi derabl e e c onom i c si gni fi cance f o r the s ta te
. I t empl o y s m o r e th an3 0, 00 0 people a nd g en er at es more th an$ 70 0 m i l l i o n in a nnua l b et tinga nd som e $ 16 m i l l i on in sta te and local go ver nm ent r eve nues. I l l
. P ub
. Ac t9 4

- 8 0 4 , § 1 ( 3 )

- ( 4 ) ; I l l i no i s R a c i ngBo a r d, “2 00 9 A n n u al R ep or t” 2, 6 (M ar . 201 0), w w w . sta te. i l
. us/ a gency /i rb/ ra ci ng/ re port s / 2 0 0 9

_ Ann ua l

_ Re po r t
. pd f ( vi si ted Feb. 1 5, 2 01 1) ; Co m m i ss i o n o n Go ve r nm en t Fo re c as tin g a n d A c c ou n ta b ility, “W ag er in g in Il lin ois

— 20 09 U p d at e” 51 -57 (20 10 ), ww w. i l g a. g o v/ co m m i ss i o n/ c g f a 2 0 0 6 /Upl o a d/2 0 0 9 wa g e r i ng

_ i n_i l
. pd f(vi si ted Feb. 15 , 2011 )
. A nd that ’s j ust the be gi nning, bec ause hor se ra cing bo ost s the hor se popu l ati on of Il l i noi s, wh i ch be ne fi ts b r ee der s, h o r se f ar m s, fee d c o m pan i es , a nd o the r c o mm e r c i a l a c t i v i t i e s a nc i l l a r y t o h o r s e r aci ng. Bil l W ri ght, “W here I l l i noi s’ Econom y Gets I ts H orsepow er, ” Chic ago Tri b une, M ar . 10, 20 02, p. 6. Governm ents ro uti nel y s ubsi dize f avo re d acti vities

— no t byt ax i ng the per sons orfi rm s e ngage d i n the acti vi ti es, wh i ch w oul d negate the subsi dy, but by taxi ng so m eone el se. Cas i no s ar e r ec en t addi ti o ns t o the l eg alg ambl i ng sc en e in Il lin ois ; th e firs t c a s i n o in th e s ta te op en ed in 19 91
. J er r y S hna y, “ Alt o n Ri ve rbo atAl r ea dy H i tt i ng J ackpot, ” Ch i c ag o Tr i b une, Se pt. 25 , 19 91, at4. They com p ete w ith th e racetrac ks an d thu s attrac t g a m b lers aw ay fro m t h em . S o at l eas t i t i s widel y b el i eve d, see I l l i noi s Harness H or sem en’ s Ass ’n , Press Rel eas e, “Top State H orsem en Flee to G reen er Pas tu res in Ea stern St ate s” ( N ov. 30 , 20 05) , and W i l l i am N ack, “A H ouse Divi ded , ” Sp o rts Illustra ted, Jul y 10, 1995, at52 , 56 , tho ugh D ou gla s M . W alk er an d Joh n D . Jac ks on , in th eir ar t i c le “D o U .S. G am b lin g In d u st rie s C a n n iba lize E ac h O th er ? ,”54 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 36 P ubli c Fin a nc e R ev. 308, 322-24 (2008), pres en t con trary evi dence

— evi dence thatcas i no a nd o thernon- ra cet rack g ambl i ngi nc r ea se s th e d em and f o r r ac et r ac kg ambl i ng by i ncre asi ng the dem and fo r gam bl i n g in g ener al
. W hat i s no t deb at ab l e i s th at, whethe r be ca us e o fthe advent o fcas i nos orbec ause ofo therf acto rs , r acet ra ck at te n d an c e a n d rev en u es in Illin ois h av e p lu m m et ed in re cent yea rs , al ong w i th the state ’ s ho rs e popul ati on and the co m m er ci alact i vi ti es that ar e co rr el ate d w i th th e n u m b er o fh or se s. Illino is R ac in g B oa rd , sup ra , at9; Com m i ssio n on Gove rnm ent F or ecas ti ng and A ccountab ilit y, sup ra , at 5 6-5 7; W ill B u ss , “H offm an : B ill W ill H elp Fai rm ount, ” Bel l e vi l l eNe ws- D e m oc r at, M ar . 27, 20 08, p. A1. The fi r sto fthe se s o ur ce s sh o ws ho r se- r ac i ng b et s fa llin g fro m $1 .2 b illion in 1 9 9 6 t o $ 70 0 m illion in 20 09 , th ou gh so m e o f th e d ro p is d ou b tle ss at tr i b u t a b le to the mis er ab le econo m i c si tu at i o n in 2 00 9, f o r the 20 07t o ta l was $ 90 0 m i l l i o n. I n a l ai ss ez - f ai r e o r S o ci alDa r wi ni sts o ci ety, g o ve r nm ent w oul d k eep i ts hand s off the com petition betw een the c asi n os and the ra cetr acks
. The di sappeara nce o f rac etrack s, j ock eys , hor ses , br i dle s, bl acks m i ths, r acetr ack touts , and DV Ds of“N ati onalVel vet ”

— re pla ced by cro up i er s, gl ass y- eye d ret i re es at one- ar m ed bandit s, ro ule tte wh eel s, and bl ackj ack tabl es, al l o n ri ve rboat casi nos

— woul d be co m m en ded as pro g r es s . B ut A m er ica n go ver nm ent i s no t co m m i tte d to the l ai sse zf ai re vi si on o fso ci ety
. Congr ess and sta te l egislat u re s ar e co nstantl y usi ng the i r taxi ng and spending and reg

ul at o r y po wer s to r edi st r ibute wea l thfr o m o ne g r o up inso c iet y t o an ot h er . Th is m ay be goo d or b ad , bu t itN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 55 is r ou tine an d cons titution al. Fed e ral p ayrolltaxe s are ear m ar ked f or such prog ra m s as M edi car e, so c ial secur i ty, and unem plo ym ent b enefi ts; the federa l ga sol i ne ta x i s use d to subsi dize h igh w ay co nstr ucti on; o ther ear m ar k ed ta xe s ( ta xe s th e r ev en ue s fr o m whi ch are speci fi ed f ora parti cul aruse) ar e co m m on. S ee Susannah Cam i c, “Ear m ar ki ng: The P otenti alBenefi ts, ” 4 Pit t
. Tax Re v. 55, 60-61 (2006). R ar ely are the tax p ayers cl o se l y matc he d wi ththe r ec i pi en ts o fth e s pen di ng th atthe t ax es s uppo r t. The l ev y i ngo ft ax es o n a parti cul ari nd ustr y forthe sol e be nefi t ofano ther i ndus try i s so m ewha t unc o m m o n b utc er ta i nl y no t unk n o wn. Fo r ex a mpl e , th e f e de r a l A u d i o H o me Recor ding A ct o f19 92 taxes digit alm edi a t o subsi dize prer eco rded m edi a, 17 U
. S. C. § 1001 ets eq . ; th e Illino is CoalTechnol ogy D eve l opm ent Assi sta nce F und ta xes g as a nd electr i ca l ut i l i ti es t o pa y f o r the de ve l o pm en t o f co al te ch no l o g i es , 30 I LCS 73 0/3; an d Ohi o taxes w i ne fro m al l o verthe w or ld to pay f orr ese ar ch on gr apes i n Ohio
. Ohio Rev. Code A nn. §§ 924. 51 et seq
. , 4301.43(B ). A n excise ta x on ca si nos i s a ta x, and w here the tax m on ey go es i s i rr el evantto the appli cabi l i ty ofthe Tax I nj unct i o n Act
. S uppo se the r ev en ue s fr o m the c as i no tax w ere earm arked f or cosm etic surge ry f or m em bers o f th e I l l i no i s l eg i sl atur e. W o ul d an y o ne do ubt th at th e casino t ax w as sti l l a tax? W oul d i t m att erthatthe tax re venues w er e di sburs ed to the i ntended re c i pie nts o f th e su bsi dy fund ed by thos e r eve nues withi n 10 days o f re c eip t? I th in k n ot, an d ye t t h e ra c et ra c k s u b sid y is l es s ab su r d tha n my h y po th et i cal ex am pl e. S i xty pe r ce nt of the su b s id y i s earm arked f or the p urs es for w inn ers56 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 and runners

- up i n hor se ra ces on the the or y that b i g g e r pu r s e s a t t r a c t the o wne r s o f the b e t t e r hor ses and the be tter the ho rs es i n a r ace the l ar gerthe atte nd an ce and the r efo r e th e m o r e m o ne y i s be t o n the ra ce a nd so the gr eat erar e the tr ack’ s r eve nues because t h ey’r e a per centag e o fthe am ount o fm oney th at i s be t. The o ther40 per cent ofthe re venue fro m the c asi no ta x i s t o be use d fo r physi cali m prove m ents oft he r acet ra cks. The subsi dy i s r ati onal l y desi gned to prom ote the hor se ra ci ng i nd ustry in I l lin ois , wh i ch se ems no l es s pr o per an o bj ec ti ve th an promot i ng a sta te’ s fi l m i nd ustr y by offer i ng tax cre dit s t o fi l m m ake rs , a c om m on f or m o fst ate subsi dy. H or se ra cing and m ovi es ar e tw o f or m s o fente rt ai nm ent. W h atis tr u e is th at n otev er y s ta te rec eip t is th e fru it of a tax
. Fees for services are n o t d e e m ed taxe s for p urposes o fthe Tax I nj uncti on Act. W e hav e e x p lai ned th e d iffer en c e a s fo llow s: “If th e fe e is a re as on ab le esti m ate o fthe cos t i m posed by the per son re quir ed to pa y the fee , the n i t i s a us er fee and i s wi th i n the muni ci pal i ty’ s r egul ato rypow er . I fi t i s ca l cul ate d not j ust to re cove r a co st i m posed o n the m unici pal i ty ori ts re si dents bu t to ge nera te re venues that the m unici pal i ty can use to off setu n re l ate d cost s o r conferunrel ate d b en efi ts, i t i s a ta x, wh ate veri ts nom i nal desi gnati on .” D igine t, Inc. v . Wes te rn U nion A T S, Inc. , 95 8 F
. 2d 1388 , 13 99 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92)
. Fo r exam ple s o fexact i ons hel d to be fees ra therthan taxes f orp u rp ose s o fthe Tax I nj uncti on A ct, se e Hager v. C ity of Wes t P eori a , 84 F. 3d 865, 87 0- 71 ( 7th Cir
. 19 96) ( fees f or p er m i ts f oruse ofcer tain str eet s by h ea vy tru c ks ); G o vern m ent Su pp liers C o n s o lid a ting Servi ces,N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 57 Inc . v. Bayh , 975 F. 2d 1267, 1271 n. 2 ( 7th Cir
. 1992) (reg istr at i o n fe e s f o r wa s t e - c o l l e c t i o n v e hi c l e s ) , a nd Trai ler M a rine Tran spo rt C o rp. v. R ivera V a z quez , 97 7 F
. 2d 1, 4- 6 ( 1st Cir
. 19 92) ( annual fee i m posed on ow n er s o fm oto r vehicl es to fund co m pu l sor y a cci dent com pensati on)
. Fo r ex ampl es o fe xa ct i o ns he l d t o be ta xe s f o r pur po se s o fthe A ct, se e Hi l l v . Ke mp , sup ra , 47 8 F.3 d at12 43- 46 ( cos ts o f s p e c i a l t y l i c e n s e p l a t e s ; r e v e n u e i n e x c e s s o fa dm i nist ra tiv e c os ts go t o ge n er al fu n d an d els ew h er e); Fol i o v. C ityof C la rksbu rg, 134 F. 3d 1211 , 1217 ( 4th Cir . 199 8) (c ity fee for fire p ro te c tio n ); Wright v. M cClain , 83 5 F
. 2d 14 3, 14 5 (6 t h C i r . 19 87 ) (p ar ole e’s p ay m en ts to a vic tim c om p en sa tio n fu n d ); an d cf. D igi ne t, Inc . v. We s t e r n Unio n A T S, Inc. , sup ra , 95 8 F
. 2d at 1399 ( “fra nchis e fee” i m posed on use o fa fibero pti c netw or k to ge nera te re venues that ar e “ use[ d] t o off setunrel ate d c os ts orco nfe r unrelated ben efi ts”). A pote n ti also urce ofco nfusi on i s that “ cour ts f aced w i th di stingui shi ng a ‘ tax’ fr om a ‘ fee’ ‘have tended
. . . to em phasi ze the r eve nue’s ul ti m ate use, as ki ng w hether i t pr ovi des a gener albene fit t o the publ i c, o fa sor t o ften fi na nc ed by a g en er al ta x, o r whethe r i t pr o vi des m ore na r r o w be ne fi ts to r egul at ed co m pan i es o r de fr ay s th e age ncy’ s co st ofr egula tio n. ’ ” Hager v. C ity of Wes t P eori a , sup ra , 84 F. 3d at 87 0. The re fer ence to “nar ro w bene fi ts” m ay see m to descr ibe thi s ca se, since o nl y r acet ra cks re cei ved the proce eds o fthe casino t ax. But th is i s t o i gnor e the w or ds i n the Hagero pini on that fol l ow “provi des m or e nar ro w b en efi ts” : “t o re gul ate d com panie s ordefra ys the a gency ’ s co st ofr egul atio n. ” A fe e m atches r ev e n u e t o c o s t : a d o c t o r ’ s fe e p a y s f o r h i s s e r v i c e . The58 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 tax o n the casinos does n ot go t o pay f orso m e s er vi ce th at the St ate o fI l l i noi s r enders to casinos; i t g oes to subsi dize r acet ra cks, a n d so i t f al l s withi n the rul e that exacti ons ofm oneyea rm ar ked f ordesi gnate d pu rpos es rath er than j us t coll ecte d to sw ellthe sta te’s coffers are taxes withi n the m eani ng o fthe Tax I nj uncti on Act w h ethero r not they ar e l evi ed f ora pu rpos e o fwh i ch j u d ge s a p p ro ve . Schneide r Transport, Inc. v. Ca tt ana ch , 65 7 F. 2d 128, 13 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 81) ( registra ti on fee hel d to be a ta x e ve n tho ug h the t ax r ev en ue s wer e deposi ted i n a seg re gat ed fund , the sta te tr anspor tat i on fund , ea rm ar ked fo r s ta te h igh w ay co n st ru c tio n ); Vale r o Te r r e s t r i al Corp. v. C a ffrey, 20 5 F
. 3d 130, 13 5 ( 4th Ci r. 20 00) (s olid waste dispos al ass ess m ent fee hel d t o be a tax ev en though th e revenues w er e e ar m ar ked forenvi ro nm entalcl ean u p ); Wright v. M cClain , sup ra , 8 3 5 F
. 2 d a t 1 4 5 ( charg es ear m arked f orco rr ecti ons hel d to be a ta x). The m aj or i ty opi ni on in the p re sent case i nvoke s Bidar tBr ot he rs v. C alif ornia App leCo m m ’n , 73 F. 3d 925 (9th C ir. 1996), but that case i nvol ved an ass ess m ent of fees on ap p le producers to suppo rt adver ti si ng and other acti vi ti es desi gned to bo ostapple co nsum pti on. The fees were to p ay for ser v ic es to the pa yors of th e fees. Tax es are l evi ed on peo ple o r fi rm s who m ay d er ive no be nefi t a t a l l f r o m th em , as in th e p re se n t c as e. W or ke rs w h o d ie bef or e r eachi ng the ag e o fel i gibi l i ty f or s ocia lse curi ty re cei ve no s oci alse curi ty benefi ts, tho ugh they m ay have pai d m any thousands ofdol l ar s in so ci alse curi ty taxes
. The pr ac ti ca l r ea so n f o r the di ffer en ce i n t r ea tment u n d er th e T ax Inju n c tio n A c t b et w ee n fee s a n d ta x e s is that enj oi ni ng the co l l ecti on o fa fee i s l ess lik el y t oN os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 59 disrup t s tat e pr ogr am s than enj oi ni ng a tax. Fee s a re f or se r vi ce s an d i fthe c o l l ec ti o n o fthe fee s i s enj o i ne d, the st at e c an cu rt ail th e s e r v i c es . C f. B en O ehrlein s & So ns & D augh te r, Inc. v. Hennepin Co unty, 11 5 F
. 3d 1372 , 13 83 ( 8th C ir. 19 9 7 ) ; San Juan C el lularTelepho ne C o. v. P ubli c Se rvice C om m ’n of P u ert o R ico , 967 F.2d 683 , 686-87 (1st C ir. 1992). B u t if th e u se of ta x m on ey s t o s u b sid ize rac et ra c ks is enj oi ned, the subsi dy prog ra m i s hal ted un tilthe i nj unctio n i s l i fted

— unle ss the rule i s t o be that a n ear m ar ked tax, hel d t o be enj oi nabl e, can be re pla ced by a t ax havi ng a bro ader base. T hi s would i nj ect the federa l cour ts deeplyi nto the design o fi nj uncti on- proo fst ate taxes
. It is t ru e t h at th e p lain tiffs are n o t se ek in g t o e nj oin the c asi no t ax i n the narrow s en se of“e nj oi n”; the m oney has be en co l l ecte d and p ai d to the r acet ra cks orpl aced ina se p ar at e fu n d th at if th e c as in os lose th is c as e w ill al so be pai d t o the r acet ra cks. But a c onst ructi ve tr ust, j u st like a n inju n c tio n, i s a n e q u ita b le re m ed y. Bont kows ki v . Sm ith , 305 F.3d 75 7, 76 1 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); Beat ty v . Gugge nheim E xplorat i on Co. , 12 2 N
. E. 378, 38 0 ( N
. Y. 19 19) (C ar d oz o, J.); 1 D an B . D ob b s, La w of R em edies § 4. 3(2), pp . 58 9- 90 ( 2d e d . 1 993). I fal l owed i n case s in w hi ch ani nj unc ti o n wo ul d b e unl awful, i t woul d defea t th e p u rp o s e o ft h e T ax Inju n c tio n A c t. So th e Se c on d C irc u it h eld in the nam e o fthe Tax A nti

- I nj uncti on Act, 26 U
. S. C. § 7421( a)

— the c ounter part, i n federal ta xati on, to the T ax Inj uncti on Act

— w i th r ega rd to the i m posi ti on o f a co nstr ucti ve tr ust o n m oney s t h at w oul d other w i se h av e be en u se d to sa tis fy fed er al t a x liab ilitie s. SEC v. Cre di tBanc orp, Lt d. , 297 F.3d 127, 137-38 (2d Cir. 2002).60 N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 Other f or m s o fequi table r elie fhave bee n hel d to be f orbi dd en by the Tax I nj uncti on A ct w hen, eve n though no e qui tabl e r el i efwas s o ug hta g ains t th e st at e i ts el f, the re lief so u gh t w ou ld h av e ind ire c tly b u t s u b st an tia lly i nt er fer ed wi tht ax c o l l ec ti o n b y the s ta te
. In S ip e v. Ame r a d a He s s Corp. , 689 F.2d 396 , 403-04 (3d Cir. 1982), f o r e x a mp l e , th e p l a i n t i ff s s o u g h tt o e nj o i n the i r e mplo yers fro m deductingunem plo ym ent t axes fro m th ei r pa y ch ec k s. And i n RT C Com m e r ci al As s e t s Tr us t19 95- NP3-1 v. Phoe nix Bond & Inde m ni ty Co. , 16 9 F
. 3d 448, 45 4- 56 ( 7th C ir. 1999) , the pla i nti ffso ught a decl ar ati on that a tax certificate t h a t the p rivate d efend an t had pu rch as ed ata t ax s al e was i nv al i d. In b o thc as es the pla i nti ff s l ost
. S ee al so B langeres v. Bu rl ington Northe rn, Inc. , 87 2 F .2d 32 7, 32 8 (9t h C ir. 1 98 9) (p er cu ria m ); cf. C alif ornia v. G raceB re thre n Ch urch , 457U .S. 39 3, 40 7-1 1 (1 98 2); Wr ight v. Pappas , 256 F.3d 635 ( 7th Cir. 2001). Bu t e ven though, i fI ’ m r i ght, thi s s uitis a c hal l enge to a st at e t ax , th e T ax Inju n c tio n A c t i s a b a r on ly if th er e is av ai l ab l e to the plaint i ff s a st at e r emedy tha t i s “pl ain, sp ee d y an d e fficie n t.” 2 8 U .S.C . § 1 34 1; se e, e.g ., Rose wel l v. L a S a l l e Nat ’ l Bank, s up ra , 45 0 U.S
. at51 2- 15. There i s. The casinos can as k a n I l l i noi s s tat e co urt to i m pose a const ructi ve tr ust o n th e tax r ecei pts. S ee Village of I tasc a v. Village of Lis le, 817 N
. E
. 2d 1 6 0, 170 (I ll
. A p p . 2004); Se l m avi l l eCom m uni ty Cons ol i dat ed S ch ool D i s t
. No. 10v. Sal e m Ele m e nt ary Sc hool D i s t
. N o. 11 1 , 42 1 N
. E.2 d 1087, 10 91 ( I l l
. App. 1 98 1). W he th erthe y c ans ee ka r efund o fthe taxes theypai d i s l ess cl ear, bec ause i t i s unclear w hether the r efund st atute ci ted bythe parti es

— th e S t a t e Offi cers and Em plo yee s M oney D isp osi ti on Act, 30 I LC S 230/2a,N os. 09

- 3975 & 10

- 1019 61

w h ich w as th e s ta tu to ry ba sis for t h e c as in os ’ cla im s in a p re vio u s s ta te co u rtac tio n, Em pre s s Cas ino Jo lie tCorp. v. Gian nou l i as , 89 6 N .E
. 2d 277, 28 3 ( I l l
. 20 08)

— author i zes the rec o v e r y o ft a x mon e y tha th a s a l r e a dy b e e n di sbursed
. I fthe unlawful ness can be tr aced to the ra cetr acks , the casinos can se ek dam age s fro m them ( as they ar e t ry i ng to do with resp ect to the tw o ra cetr acks t h a t i t ch arges w ith ha ving violated the R I C O statu te). W hat the cas i nos can n ot be per m i tte d to do i s t o fre eze th e st ate ’ s t ax m oney s byi m posi ti on o fa const ructi ve t r u s to n th e m. To sum m ar i ze m y pos i ti on, the questi on wh ether B l a g oj e v i c h i s e n t i t l e d t o ab s o l u t e i m m u n i t y f r o m a c i v i l s u i t c h a l l e n g i n g h i s l e g i s l a t i ve ac ts w h ile govern or shou ld be ce rtified to t h e Su p rem e C ou rt o fI l l i nois; the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ul i ngtha t th e pl ainti ff s’ co nstr ucti ve tr ust cl ai m i s barre d b y the Tax Inj unct i o n Acts ho ul d b e a ffi r med
.

3- 2- 11