Opinion ID: 2996136
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State Due Process Claims

Text: Although we determined in Part II.B that Trejo’s claims fail under federal law, Trejo also argues that he was deprived of his rights to due process under the Illinois Constitution of 1970. The Illinois Supreme Court has stated that it “labor[s] under no self-imposed constraint to follow federal precedent in ‘lockstep’ in defining Illinois’ due process protection.” People v. Washington, 665 N.E.2d 1330, 1335 (Ill. 1996). However, the Court has stressed that it has interpreted its constitution to provide citizens with greater protections than the federal constitution only in those instances where it has “found an appropriate basis to do so,” adding that “federal precedent interpreting the federal due process clause is useful as No. 00-3341 19 a guide in interpreting the Illinois provision.” Lewis E. v. Spagnola, 710 N.E.2d 798, 812 (Ill. 1999). Trejo has failed to cite, much less discuss, any case law holding that an Illinois court has expanded and endowed non-tenured university professors with due process rights beyond those set forth by the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of his claim of an entitlement to protection under the Illinois Constitution, Trejo has referred us only to the following excerpt from the debates of two delegates to the Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1970: MRS. LEAHY: I have several questions, Mr. Len- non. It seemed to me that there has been a great deal of development of the due process interpretation in the Federal Constitution in the last 15 years, and the cases that you referred to, to define ‘due pro- cess,’ were quite old. Did your com- mittee mean to incorporate the recent interpretations of the Due Process Clause of the Federal Con- stitution into this clause? MR. A. LENNON: Well, I don’t think anybody is try- ing to incorporate by reference any- thing. We are faced with whatever the law is, and it may be different by this afternoon at 3 o’clock than it was yesterday, depending upon what the Supreme Court is doing. I think we all recognize that no matter what concept or doctrine you talk about, we have to live with what the Supreme Court in- terprets in particular cases. 20 No. 00-3341 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS: 6TH ILLINOIS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 1501 (June 4, 1970). These above-quoted statements were made during a discussion about the general nature of due process. The discussion focused on the rights of unborn children, but contained absolutely no reference to the rights of non-tenured professors within the University of Illinois system, and thus has no relevance to the issue before us. Based on our review of the evidence in this record, we refuse to hold that the Illinois Constitution’s Due Process Clause entitles such probationary employees to additional rights beyond those provided under federal law.