Perhaps no one has been more outspoken regarding the importance of oral arguments in appellate courts than Illinois Supreme Court Justice Karmeier, who has reiterated the importance of providing appellate counsel an opportunity to “isolate and clarify the core issues in a case and to direct the court’s attention to matters that may have been overlooked or misunderstood.” As chief justice, he categorized the “interactive nature” between counsel and the justices as being “invaluable” to the court’s decision-making process and emphasized the importance of the interaction between the justices themselves during oral argument. Justice Karmeier also lauded oral argument as a key component to “providing public visibility and institutional legitimacy to our system of judicial review.” All of these statements came to fruition in an amendment of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352, known affectionately by some as “Thou shalt oral,” which into effect July 1, 2018, and has had a significant impact on appellate advocacy. In her November Illinois Bar Journal article, “Oral Arguments: More and Less Remote,” Amanda Hamilton discusses the steady increase in oral arguments in Illinois appellate courts and why Illinois appellate practitioners must be prepared to present and defend their positions on complex issues at oral argument with increasing frequency.

In their November Illinois Bar Journal article, “A Palpable Conflict,” Anthony J. Longo and John M. Fitzgerald pit two ancient doctrines against each other: the law of the case vs. subject-matter jurisdiction. What happens, Longo and Fitzgerald ask, when subject-matter jurisdiction and the law-of-the-case doctrine clash? In other words, does the law-of-the-case doctrine really bar someone from relitigating the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction in a subsequent appeal? The authors, in their article, “A Palpable Conflict,” show that there is a split of authority on this issue. While the majority of reported Illinois decisions on this issue have held that the law-of-the-case doctrine indeed bars relitigating a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, a minority of cases have found (or at least strongly suggest) that defects in subject-matter jurisdiction can indeed be raised at any time—including after the appellate court has already ruled that it does possess subject-matter jurisdiction.

This year, legalized recreational cannabis was supposed to dominate the news in Illinois and elsewhere (other things happened). In their October Illinois Bar Journal article, “What’s That Smell?,” Emily L. Fitch and Brenda M. (Duke) Mathis revisit Illinois’ new cannabis-related laws and follow the legal issues sprouting from cannabis legalization. They conclude multiple issues remain to be clarified by legislative action and caselaw, including questions surrounding probable cause with the scent of cannabis alone and whether a free air sniff is sufficient when the dog has been trained to detect cannabis. Up to this point, Illinois courts have placed only limited restrictions on free air sniffs. However, it does appear that the reviewing courts are prepared to throw out a prosecutorial-minded approach to the free air sniff and write new caselaw in the face of cannabis legalization. Fitch and Mathis also summarize new cannabis laws and compare Illinois with other states revisiting probable-search caselaw in light of cannabis legalization.

As with any new technology, the use of biometrics comes with complications. If it is suspected that the device has been used to commit a crime, law enforcement is authorized to apply for a warrant to search the device. If the device is protected by a biometric feature, the government will seek authorization to compel the owner to unlock the device. In his October Illinois Bar Journal article, “I Can’t Quite Put My Finger on It,” Thomas A. Drysdale asks whether a person can be compelled to provide a biometric feature to unlock a device and finds that, due to the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, courts have struggled to find an answer. Drysdale examines the constitutional implications of compelling biometric features, compares differing judicial opinions, and provides background information for the Illinois practitioner approaching the issue.