Opinion ID: 2167483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: The threshold argument raised by both the Chicago Board and the State Board is that because the circuit court granted plaintiff relief pursuant to the administrative review count of his complaint, the court unnecessarily reached plaintiff's constitutional challenge. Therefore, pursuant to our decision in Trent v. Winningham, 172 Ill.2d 420, 217 Ill.Dec. 741, 667 N.E.2d 1317 (1996), the Chicago Board and the State Board maintain that this court should remand plaintiff's cause to the circuit court with directions that the order entered by the circuit court on October 20, 1997, be vacated and modified to exclude the ruling that section 34-85 of the School Code unconstitutionally violates due process. We agree. Supreme Court Rule 302(a) provides that appeals from final judgments of the circuit court shall be taken directly to this court in cases in which a statute of    this state has been held invalid. 134 Ill.2d R. 302(a). The primary purpose of the direct appeal provision of Rule 302(a) is to preserve stability in our legal system; when legislation has been held unconstitutional, the rule provides for immediate review by the ultimate authority in this state on the law. Trent, 172 Ill.2d at 425, 217 Ill.Dec. 741, 667 N.E.2d 1317. Circuit courts, however, should not    compromise that stability in the first place by declaring legislation unconstitutional when the particular case does not require it. Trent, 172 Ill.2d at 425, 217 Ill.Dec. 741, 667 N.E.2d 1317. Indeed, it is well established that questions regarding the constitutionality of statutes should be considered only where essential to the disposition of a case, i.e., where the case cannot be determined on other grounds. Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Board, 158 Ill.2d 391, 396, 199 Ill.Dec. 659, 634 N.E.2d 712 (1994). In Trent v. Winningham, 172 Ill.2d 420, 217 Ill.Dec. 741, 667 N.E.2d 1317 (1996), we determined that because the circuit court unnecessarily decided a constitutional question where the court also denied the plaintiff relief on alternative, nonconstitutional grounds, it was appropriate for this court to decline direct appellate jurisdiction. In Trent, a mother filed a paternity suit against the putative father and sought retroactive child support under section 14(b) of the Illinois Parentage Act (750 ILCS 45/14(b) (West 1992)). The trial court denied Trent's claim for support on three grounds, one of which was that section 14(b) was unconstitutional. Trent, 172 Ill.2d at 422, 217 Ill.Dec. 741, 667 N.E.2d 1317. Trent appealed the circuit court's ruling to this court, asserting that a direct appeal was appropriate under Rule 302(a) because section 14(b) had been declared unconstitutional. In Trent, we held that the circuit court's constitutional ruling could not properly serve as a basis for direct supreme court review under Rule 302(a). We stated that, although circumstances triggering Rule 302(a) technically existed, in that a statute was held unconstitutional in a final judgment of a circuit court, the jurisdictional basis was complicated by the alternative, nonconstitutional reasons given by the court for denying Trent's claim. We explained that, because the circuit court had provided two nonconstitutional grounds for denying plaintiff relief, the constitutional ground for its holding was not necessary for the resolution of the case, and, therefore, Rule 302(a) jurisdiction was improper. Trent, 172 Ill.2d at 426, 217 Ill.Dec. 741, 667 N.E.2d 1317. Furthermore, we observed that when circuit courts prematurely invalidate legislation in cases that can be disposed of on a nonconstitutional basis, the effect is to circumvent the normal appellate process and require this court to accept cases it might otherwise decline to hear. Trent, 172 Ill.2d at 426, 217 Ill.Dec. 741, 667 N.E.2d 1317. Based upon this concern, Trent admonished the circuit courts not to declare statutes unconstitutional unless absolutely necessary. Trent, 172 Ill.2d at 425, 217 Ill.Dec. 741, 667 N.E.2d 1317. We find that Trent governs the disposition of the cause at bar. We recently observed that our decision in Trent hinged upon the fact that the circuit court in that case based its judgment on three alternative grounds: one being that the applicable statute at issue was unconstitutional; and the other grounds being determined through the application of the relevant provisions of the same statute. McLean v. Department of Revenue, 184 Ill.2d 341, 235 Ill.Dec. 3, 704 N.E.2d 352 (1998). Precisely the same situation exists in the instant matter: the circuit court judge granted plaintiff relief on count III of his complaint by ruling that section 34-85 of the School Code was unconstitutional, and granted plaintiff additional and alternative relief under count I of his complaint, applying the relevant portions of precisely the same statute which the circuit court declared unconstitutional. Plaintiff raises two main arguments in support of his contention that the circuit court appropriately reached the constitutional question. First, plaintiff maintains that because the administrative review claim is closely related to the constitutional question, [t]o consider one requires contemplation of the other. Nowhere, however, does plaintiff assert that the circuit court's ruling on the validity of section 34-85 was essential to the disposition of the nonconstitutional question concerning administrative review. Second, plaintiff contends that the circuit court's invalidation of section 34-85 serves judicial economy. In finding section 34-85 unconstitutional, the circuit court judge reasoned that her decision would save other teachers from being subjected to the statute's processes and save other courts from having to interpret the statute. However, courts operate only in the context of resolving lawsuits ( Trent, 172 Ill.2d at 425-26, 217 Ill.Dec. 741, 667 N.E.2d 1317), and, in the instant cause, the circuit court's ruling finding section 34-85 unconstitutional was not necessary to resolve plaintiff's claim for administrative review.