Blog

The Takeaway

The fate of Illinois’ intra-state forum non conveniens doctrine may be hanging in the air in an unlikely case that involves a constitutional challenge to an Illinois venue statute. One question that the parties, their amici, and the Court ponder is: Has the ability to remotely attend court proceedings made the doctrine of intra-state forum non conveniens obsolete?

Both plaintiff and defendant bars filed amicus briefs, oral arguments have been heard, and the case now awaits a ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Case Background

On January 22, 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Piasa Armory v. Raoul et al., No. 130549. In this case, an East Alton gun store brought a lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court challenging the Illinois Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, in part on Second Amendment grounds. The State of Illinois, represented by its Attorney General Kwame Raoul, moved to transfer venue to Sangamon County based on the recently enacted statute that requires all actions “seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against any State statute, rule, or executive order” and based on constitutional grounds be brought only in Sangamon and Cook Counties. Piasa Armory objected, claiming that the venue statute itself was unconstitutional because it inhibited court access for those residing outside of Sangamon and Cook Counties.

The Madison County Circuit Court agreed with Piasa Armory, refused to transfer the case, and declared the venue statute unconstitutional. The Court reasoned, in part, that by requiring statutory challenges to be litigated in only 2 out of Illinois’ more than 100 counties, the venue statute impermissibly infringed on the courts’ inherent power to transfer cases to more convenient forums under the doctrine of intra-state forum non conveniens. The Circuit Court also relied on Williams v. Illinois State Scholarship Comm’n, 139 Ill. 2d 24 (1990), which ruled that a statute defining Cook County as the exclusive venue for all lawsuits involving delinquent and defaulted student loans violated the student borrowers’ due process rights.

The State’s Appeal

The State appealed the Circuit Court’s decision, arguing, in part, that the court improperly applied the forum non conveniens analysis—which involves discretionary considerations of the convenience of the parties and their witnesses—to the constitutional due process challenge to a statute. The latter, the State argued, defers to the legislature and requires a much higher threshold to invalidate a legislative enactment (i.e., a litigant must show that the statute is “so arbitrary or unreasonable as to deprive [the litigant] of due process”). The State also argued that Piasa Armory—or other plaintiffs—have no constitutional right to litigate their action in the most convenient forum, and that the doctrine of intra-state forum non conveniens was “a modern invention,” which Illinois didn’t recognize until 1983 in Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill. 2d 338 (1983). The State went even further. It argued that to the extent that forum non conveniens principles are relevant to the due process analysis, the Court should consider modifying or overruling the intrastate forum non conveniens doctrine because it’s become outdated in light of recent technological advances that make travel and communications much easier and enable remote participation in court proceedings.

Amici Briefs

What began as a challenge to a state venue statute morphed into a battle of amici over the viability of the intrastate forum non conveniens doctrine in light of modern technological advances.

The plaintiffs’ bar picked up on the State’s forum non conveniens argument and expanded it. The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA) filed an amicus brief in the Illinois Supreme Court in support of the State’s position. In its brief, ITLA called on the high Court to abolish the intrastate forum non conveniens doctrine altogether as a relic of the past. In turn, the Illinois Defense Counsel (IDC), representing the state’s defense bar, filed its own amicus brief[1] in support of Piasa Armory. IDC’s brief was devoted entirely to opposing ITLA’s forum non conveniens argument. It argued that depriving courts of their inherent authority to transfer actions to the most convenient forum would encourage unrestricted forum shopping by the plaintiffs’ bar, who would jockey for the most advantageous forum (i.e., one where juries have been known to return larger verdicts). (This practice is already common in Illinois, where venue is proper in any county where a corporate defendant “resides,” even if the accident or transaction did not take place there.)

Oral Arguments

During oral arguments in the Supreme Court, both the State and Piasa Armory sought to scale back their forum non conveniens positions. They both asked the Supreme Court not to confuse the common law forum non conveniens analysis with the due process analysis in the context of assessing the constitutionality of a venue statute.

Still, the availability of remote court proceedings and Zoom were clearly on the Justices’ minds. Justice Lisa Holder White asked counsel for the State if the Court should be considering all the technological advances we’ve experienced with COVID, such as the use of Zoom, where litigants don’t have to travel to appear at court proceedings. The State agreed that these technological advances should be considered, particularly now that Supreme Court rules allow litigants to present evidence and deposition testimony remotely, without the need to appear in person.

Justice Mary K. O’Brien asked Piasa Armory’s counsel if the Court should consider advances in technology that have made it easier to litigate from anywhere, no matter where venue is established. In response, counsel disagreed. He argued that while technology could be useful in facilitating remote appearances during routine status calls, evidentiary proceedings involving presentation of documentary and live witness testimony are best conducted in person.

Conclusion

While the Justices’ questions reflected some skepticism towards Piasa Armory’s claim that a 90-minute travel to a Sangamon County courthouse would violate its due process rights, it remains to be seen if they choose to address the viability of the intrastate forum non conveniens doctrine in the case before them.

[1] HeplerBroom partner Irina Dmitrieva co-authored IDC’s amicus brief.