Could an Illinois judge urge city officials to shorten liquor-sale hours in public or private?

Plain-English summary

A judge wanted a city to reduce liquor-sale hours, citing public safety, the community’s image and demands on courts. The Committee said former Rule 64 allowed the judge to advocate the change at a public hearing if the advocacy did not cast doubt on impartiality.

For a letter or private conversation with the mayor or council, the Committee required a connection to administration of justice. Reducing alcohol-related offenses and court resource demands supplied that connection. Improving the community’s image alone did not, so an argument based on image could be made only at a public hearing.

Currency note

The Committee’s page states that this opinion interprets the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded on January 1, 2023. It does not assess whether the 2023 Code changes the analysis. Verify the current Code before relying on it.

In practice

The opinion permitted the stated recommendation in public and limited private consultation to its judicial-resource and administration-of-justice grounds.

Common questions

Q: Could the judge speak at a public council hearing?

A: Yes. The Committee said the judge could support the ordinance change publicly under former Rule 64.

Q: Could the judge privately advocate it for community image alone?

A: No. The Committee limited private consultation to administration-of-justice grounds.

Background and rules framework

The Committee interpreted former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 64’s different provisions for public hearings and other consultation with executive or legislative officials.

Citations and references

• Illinois Supreme Court Rule 64.
• Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, 211 Ill. 2d 286 (2004).

See also

• IL Judicial Ethics Op. 2016-03

Source

• Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 2007-05