Crusius v. Illinois Gaming Board

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a special legislation challenge is typically reviewed “under the - 19 - No. 1-23-0803 same standards applicable to an equal protection challenge”
• “It is not our place to second-guess the wisdom of a statute that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest ***.”
• while Emerald Casino’s administrative appeal was pending before the Illinois Gaming Board, legislation was enacted allowing “[a] licensee that was not conducting riverboat gambling on January 1, 1998” (Emerald
• “It is not our place to second-guess the wisdom of a statute that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest ***.”
• statute discriminated in favor of “licensees that were ‘not conducting riverboat gambling on January 1, 1998’ (230 ILCS 10/11.2(a) (West 2000)),” of which Emerald Casino, Inc., was the only one
• “For a provision in a law to pass the rational basis test, it does not have to promote all of the law’s disparate and potentially conflicting objectives.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).