Opinion ID: 6350305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d 1, 4 (N.J. 1954)).

Text: ¶ 26 This must of course be the governing rule. If it were otherwise, a dissatisfied party could simply move in the circuit court following a remand to have the reviewing court’s directions set aside, effectively upending our hierarchical judicial system. And that is precisely what occurred in this case. Defendant’s motion to reconsider was explicit in arguing that the decision of this court in Brown was incorrect and should not be followed. It was, in short, an “impermissible attack on the judgment rendered by this court” in Brown. Price, 2015 IL 117687, ¶ 52. ¶ 27 There is a means for a dissatisfied party to seek reconsideration of a decision of this court. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 367 (eff. Nov. 1, 2017), the party may file a petition for rehearing. Defendant in this case did not file one. A party may not ignore the requirements of Rule 367, then move in the circuit court to overrule this court. ¶ 28 Similarly, the circuit court’s conclusion that the dissent in Brown was correct and that the “best interests of justice” required it to disobey this court’s directions was plainly error. A circuit court may disagree with the resolution of a case provided by a reviewing court, but once the reviewing court has rendered its decision and issued its mandate, it must be obeyed. A circuit court “cannot amend, alter, or refuse to apply an appellate court’s mandate simply because an attorney persuades the court that the decision giving rise to the mandate is wrong, misguided, or unjust. A [circuit] court can, of course, wax eloquent about how wrong the appellate court is, but after the waxing wanes the mandate must be followed.” Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 881 F.3d 835, 844 (11th Cir. 2018). -8- ¶ 29 Defendant’s motion to reconsider was an inappropriate and impermissible attack on this court’s judgment in Brown. The circuit court had “no power whatever” (People ex rel. McLaren v. DeBoice, 377 Ill. 634, 639 (1941)) to entertain defendant’s motion or to take any action other than entering the modified order. ¶ 30 We recognize that the parties are clearly anxious to have this court review the circuit court’s order of April 26, 2021, finding section 2(a)(1) unconstitutional as applied. Indeed, in the circuit court, counsel for defendant was so intent on reaching the constitutional issue that he took the extraordinary step of moving to vacate the June 4, 2020, modified order—an order that granted his client complete relief in a criminal case—even though counsel was appearing before a new judge and had been given no assurance on the record as to how that judge might rule on any future defense motions. Nevertheless, the parties’ desire to have this court review the circuit court’s April 26, 2021, order does not solve the fundamental problem presented here: to review the circuit court’s order finding section 2(a)(1) unconstitutional, this court would first have to conclude that the circuit court had the authority to enter that order. And to reach that conclusion, we would have to hold that a circuit court possesses the power to set aside the directions of this court. We cannot take that step. ¶ 31 “Mandates of this court are not to be treated lightly but are to be obeyed.” Id. Where the cause is remanded by this court “with specific directions, the court below has no discretion, but must pursue the mandate” of this court. Chickering v. Failes, 29 Ill. 294, 302-03 (1862). Accordingly, the circuit court’s orders of April 26, 2021, and June 15, 2020, must be vacated. The cause is remanded to the circuit court to reenter the modified order that was originally entered on June 4, 2020, at the direction of this court. On remand, the circuit court shall not entertain any motion from any party, nor take any action other than entering the modified order. Because the circuit court’s orders must be vacated, we do not reach any other issue in this appeal. ¶ 32 CONCLUSION ¶ 33 For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s orders of April 26, 2021, and June 15, 2020, are vacated. The cause is remanded to the circuit court to reenter the -9- modified order that was originally entered on June 4, 2020, at the direction of this court. On remand, the circuit court shall not entertain any motion from any party, nor take any action other than entering the modified order. ¶ 34 Vacated and remanded with directions.