Illinois Supreme Court
Governor's immunity from defamation suit
Allan L. Blair et al. v. Daniel Walker, Governor. Decided May 28, 1976.
A 1974 sale of a home for delinquent taxes made headlines when Gov. Dan Walker, in an official statement and press release, assailed the two buyers, Allan Blair and David Gray as "two unscrupulous men, "and said he had instructed the Department of Registration and Education to revoke the two men's real estate licenses. Blair and Gray then brought an action for defamation against Walker, who responded that as governor he was protected by an absolute privilege when publishing the statements in question. On appeal, the Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Ryan agreed with the governor.
"We are convinced that there are circumstances in which it is proper to extend absolute immunity to executive officials," the court said. "Certainly the Governor of this State should be able to carry out his daily responsibilities free from concern that his actions will result in civil damage suits. What must be decided in the instant appeal is whether the Governor was acting within the scope of his official duties when issuing the statements in question."
After noting that the Constitution vests supreme executive power in the governor and his duties encompass the "general supervision" of the Department of Registration and Education, the court stated, "The Governor must be afforded an absolute privilege commensurate with the scope of the discretion he is required to exercise if the goal of unrestrained and fearless administration of government is to be achieved." According to the court, the governor is protected from actions for civil defamation by "an absolute privilege when issuing statements which are legitimately related to matters committed to his responsibility."
Justice Schaefer took no part in this decision.
Licensing foreign doctors
Dr. Arturo Rios et al., v. Nolan B. Jones, Director of the
Department of Personnel, et al. Decided May 28, 1976.
The plaintiffs were physicians born and educated in countries other than the United States and employed by the state Department of Mental Health under special permits as authorized by law. Under section 13a of the Medical Practice Act as amended by Public Act 772757 and later by P.A. 78 1103, these physicians were required to take an examination to receive a state hospital permit or renew one after July 1, 1975, and to submit proof that they were pursuing studies to enable them to pass an examination to practice medicine.
The physicians contended these requirements violated their constitutional rights. The court did not agree. "The State's interest in promoting the general welfare by licensing physicians is of great importance. We believe that it is reasonable to impose strict licensing requirements upon physicians who received their medical training in foreign countries. The medical education received by the plaintiffs may be inferior to, superior to or comparable to medical education available in the United States. The fact is, however, that our General Assembly cannot be expected to be a judge of the quality of foreign medical training facilities. We do not find it unreasonable that the legislature chose to terminate the State hospital permit system..."
The court added, "Distinguishing between doctors who were educated in this country and those who were educated in foreign countries and establishing licensing procedures based on that distinction is not necessarily arbitrary, unreasonable or unrelated to the public purpose sought to be attained," and upheld the constitutionality of section 13a. The opinion was written by Justice Crebs.
U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois, Western Division
Obscenity law unconstitutional
Eagle Books, Inc., et al. v. Philip Reinhard and Delbert Peter son.
Decided May 28, 1976.
Illinois' law on obscenity (///. Rev. Stat.. ch. 38, sec. 1120) was held unconstitutional because it is not sufficiently specific as to what constitutes obscenity. The opinion was written by District Judge Joel M. Pflaum, sitting with Judge Walter J. Cummings of the Court of Appeals and District Judge Hubert L. Will. Judge Pflaum quoted from language in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, which requires as one of the tests of a valid obscenity prohibition, "whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law."
The Illinois law uses the following definition: "A thing is obscene if, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion, and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters. A thing is obscene though the obscenity is latent, as in the case of undeveloped photographs."
The plaintiffs were the owners of two bookstores in Rockford and employees of the stores, and they sought to enjoin Reinhard, state's attorney of Winnebago County, and Peterson, the Rockford police chief, from enforcing the Illinois law. The court granted the injunction.
The Illinois Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of the same section as recently as May 14, 1976, in People v. Wesley Ward, a case involving the operator of a Peoria book store. Ward had been convicted of obscenity after a bench trial in the Peoria County circuit court and contended on appeal that the Illinois statute "does not specifically define the type of sexual conduct that may not be depicted." The Illinois Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Crebs, disagreed. "It is extremely difficult to define the term 'obscenity' with a fine degree of precision. We again express our opinion that Illinois' statutory definition is sufficiently clear to withstand constitutional objectives."
An appeal of the Eagle Books decision to the U.S. Supreme Court is expected. ž
August 1976 / Illinois Issues/28