Opinion ID: 2211695
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Before addressing the merits of the trial court's order, we must first consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. As stated, the Department of Revenue appealed to this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(a)(1). That rule permits appeals directly to this court when a statute of the United States or of this State has been held invalid. 134 Ill.2d R. 302(a)(1). The trial court's order declared that the Tax Act as applied to the plaintiff Timothy Rehg violates the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 Section 10 of the Illinois Constitution. If this order is construed as resting exclusively upon the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution and its counterpart in the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 10), the trial court's judgment is not appealable directly to this court pursuant to Rule 302(a)(1). An order that application of the Act to the plaintiff would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy does not invalidate the Act, any more than an order declaring that a particular defendant may not be tried for homicide invalidates the homicide statute. Such an order does not declare a statute unconstitutional; it simply declares that application of that statute would violate a particular defendant's constitutional rights. An appeal from such an order is properly brought in the appellate court pursuant to Rule 301 (134 Ill.2d R. 301). The quoted portion of the trial court's order suggests that the court simply held that the Act could not be applied constitutionally to the plaintiff, because it placed him twice in jeopardy for the same offense. A close reading of the Memorandum Opinion and Order reveals, however, that the court also declared the Act unconstitutional on its face. The trial court determined that the Act violated the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions, because it imposed a criminal penalty without affording an accused the proper constitutional safeguards. Accordingly, we find that we have jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 302(a)(1).