McClellan v. Hull

Respondent appealed from the entry of an emergency order of protection and plenary order of protection in favor of petitioner as well as the denial of her petition for a civil no contact order against the petitioner. Respondent raised multiple issues on appeal, including that the trial court order erred in issuing the orders because the parties lacked the requisite relationship required by the Illinois Domestic Violence Act and that the order of protection was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The court granted leave for multiple domestic violence, crime victim, and sexual assault organizations to file an amicus brief in which they argued that prohibiting survivors of sexual violence from sharing their experiences on social media would be harmful to the healing process. The appellate court reversed the order of protection entered against respondent and affirmed the denial of respondent’s petition for a no contact order. The court explained that the parties were not in a dating relationship as required by the Illinois Domestic Violence Act and, as a result, an emergency order of protection should have not been granted in petitioner’s favor. The court further concluded that the denial of the no contact order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where respondent’s testimony was inconsistent. (HYMAN and C.A. WLAKER, concurring)