In case you missed it, the IL Supreme Court overruled the Macon County judge and upheld the IL Gun ban (PICA, Protect Illinois Communities Act). Justice Rochford authored the 4-3 ruling.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/xmvjllgzqvr/08112023illinois_guns.pdf
While she was campaigning for the position (we will ignore all prior stuff like the donations from the defendants of the case), she was visibly working with a big supporter of the ban, Moms Demand Action. This is all prior to PICA being introduced.
As you can see, she's not shy about her support for them (or at least to be seen with them and get their help). Defendant Pritzker, who she ruled in favor of, even credits Everytown (Moms Demand Action) for getting this law passed.
And now, it gets even more wild.....
Rochford was sworn in to the IL Supreme Court on 12/5/22
Two days later on 12/7/22, as a sitting IL Supreme Court Justice, it is now confirmed that she attended and participated in some way at a Moms Demand Action event that was organized to promote PICA. The event appears to be a lobbying/outreach one to gain support for the introduced bill at the time.
Also among the pics included on that post, we have an outline of their action plan to get the bill passed. According to Elliot's post, this action plan was the point of the meeting.
Elliot is a politician btw, not just some rando.
Oh, and here he is on the house floor with Pritzker (the lead defendant in the case Rochford ruled in his favor for) when the bill was sent to his (Pritzker's) desk
Also, the Vernon Hills/Buffalo Grove chapter of Moms Demand Action's Facebook group use a picture from that event as their banner.
Another FB post regarding the event, this one by IL State Senator Mary Edly-Allen. She talks about how now elected officials, like Rochford, implicates the future of Moms Demand Action's goals.
As you can see, the conflicts of interest of Rochford's position and attending that event are blatant. This ruling is now ripe for federal court on a Caperton V Massey SCOTUS opinion challenge because she refused to recuse herself from the case when a motion was filed to do so. What is Caperton V Massey?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/caperton-v-massey
On June 8, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Caperton v. Massey. In a 5–4 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the court concluded that, given the “serious risk of actual bias,” the Due Process Clause required the recusal of Judge Brent Benjamin. Case background can be found below the list of amicus briefs on the merits.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority:
“We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias – based on objective and reasonable perceptions – when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent. The inquiry centers on the contribution’s relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.”
“Justice Benjamin did undertake an extensive search for actual bias. But, as we have indicated, that is just one step in the judicial process; objective standards may also require recusal whether or not actual bias exists or can be proved…The failure to consider objective standards requiring recusal is not consistent with the imperatives of due process.”
“Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal.”
As you see, we now have a situation where the mere appearance of bias is enough to move this state level case (Caulkins V Pritzker) to the federal courts/SCOTUS. It is not known yet if Caulking attorney Jerry Stocks will do this, but Caulkins did imply it's on the table. Her refusal to recuse from the case is what saved the law. If she had recused, it would have been 3-3 and the lower court ruling would have stood.