Court: Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District

In a closely watched procedural challenge, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by 47 Republican legislators seeking to invalidate Senate Bill 328 (SB 328) on the grounds that it was enacted in violation of the Illinois Constitution’s three-readings rule. The court’s decision in McCombie v. Welch, 2026 IL App (4th) 250971, underscores the continued strength of Illinois’ enrolled bill doctrine and the significant hurdles facing litigants challenging legislation based on procedural defects.

Background

The plaintiffs, members of the Illinois General Assembly, alleged that SB 328 was passed through a “gut-and-replace” legislative maneuver in the final hours of the 2025 spring session. According to the complaint, the bill originally addressed amendments to pleadings and e-filing procedures but was completely rewritten through a floor amendment to address personal jurisdiction issues involving foreign corporations in toxic tort litigation. Plaintiffs contended that the final version of the bill was introduced and passed within hours, without receiving the constitutionally required three readings in each chamber.

Notably, the legislators did not challenge the substance of SB 328. Instead, they argued that the bill was enacted through an unconstitutional process and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Court’s Decision

The appellate court affirmed the Sangamon County Circuit Court’s dismissal of the action. Relying on longstanding Illinois Supreme Court precedent, the court held that the enrolled bill doctrine barred judicial review of the plaintiffs’ three-readings challenge. Under that doctrine, once the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate certify that a bill has satisfied constitutional procedural requirements, courts generally will not look behind those certifications to examine the legislative process.

The court emphasized that it was bound by Illinois Supreme Court decisions recognizing the enrolled bill doctrine, including Friends of the Parks v. Chicago Park District. As an intermediate appellate court, it concluded that any reconsideration of the doctrine must come from the Illinois Supreme Court, not the appellate court.

Importantly, the court expressly declined to determine whether SB 328 violated the three-readings rule. Instead, it held that even if such a violation occurred, existing precedent precluded judicial review.

Continued Judicial Frustration with Legislative Procedures

Although the court rejected the challenge, the opinion contains noteworthy commentary regarding legislative compliance with constitutional procedural requirements. Citing prior Illinois Supreme Court decisions, the court acknowledged longstanding concerns over the General Assembly’s use of procedures that may circumvent the three-readings rule. The court reiterated concerns previously expressed in First Midwest Bank v. Rossi regarding the legislature’s “continued blatant flouting of constitutional provisions” and lamented that it was required by precedent to “turn a blind eye” to potential constitutional violations by a co-equal branch of government.

The opinion also highlights prior warnings from the Illinois Supreme Court that it may someday revisit the enrolled bill doctrine if the General Assembly continues to demonstrate what the courts have characterized as a poor record of self-policing compliance with constitutional procedural requirements.

Standing Issue Left Unresolved

The circuit court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, the appellate court deemed that issue unnecessary to resolve because its holding on the enrolled bill doctrine was dispositive. The court noted that standing is not a jurisdictional prerequisite under Illinois law and therefore focused exclusively on the bar imposed by the enrolled bill doctrine.

Takeaways

The decision reinforces the substantial protection the enrolled bill doctrine affords legislation enacted by the Illinois General Assembly. While the court expressed continued concern regarding legislative compliance with the three-readings rule, it held that existing Illinois Supreme Court precedent bars judicial review of such challenges once legislative leaders certify compliance with constitutional procedural requirements.

For the asbestos and toxic tort community, the practical significance of the ruling is that SB 328 remains in effect. The plaintiffs characterized the statute as expanding Illinois courts’ jurisdiction over foreign corporations in toxic tort litigation, but the appellate court did not address the merits of those jurisdictional issues.

Because the challenge was resolved under the enrolled bill doctrine, the court left unanswered the substantive questions regarding the reach and constitutionality of SB 328. Those issues will need to be addressed in future cases presenting direct personal-jurisdiction challenges.