LIGHTFOOT.

NOW TO OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT.

>>> OF THE FAITH OVER WHETHER CASH BAIL WILL BE ELIMINATED IN ILLINOIS IS IN THE HANDS OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

ILLINOIS WAS SUPPOSED TO DO AWAY WITH CASH BAIL AT THE START OF 2023, IT BECAME PART OF A BROADER CRIMINAL JUSTICE OVERHAUL PASSED BY STATE LAWMAKERS.

INSTEAD, JUSTICE WAS SET TO GO INTO EFFECT, AND THE COURT RULED THAT THE PRETRIAL BOND REVISIONS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TODAY, THE HIGH COURT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENTS ON THAT CASE.

AMANDA, TELL US WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT.

>> Reporter: AS THE LAWSUIT TENDS TO STATE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS ARE AGAINST LEADERS AND SOME SHERIFFS, AND IT IS IN THE HANDS OF THE SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.

BOTH SIDES CAN AGREE ON THIS MUCH, THE JUSTICES DECISION ON THE CASE WILL HAVE MAJOR RAMIFICATIONS ON THE FUTURE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN ILLINOIS.

THE PLAINTIFF FIGHTING THE LAW ONCE THE COURT TO WAIT UNTIL THE MAIN ARGUMENTS, ONE, BECAUSE THE STATE CONSTITUTION REFERENCES BAIL, THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT JUST ABOLISH CASH BAIL, THAT SHOULD REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

>> THEY ARE FREE TO SET PUBLIC POLICY BUT ON SOME OCCASIONS, THEY HAVE TO TAKE THAT TO THE VOTERS.

>> Reporter: HE POINTS OUT THAT TWICE IN THE 80s, ILLINOIS WENT TO VOTERS TO APPROVE QUESTIONS REGARDING BAIL.

PLAINTIFFS ALSO SAID THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FINALLY HAS A SEPARATION OF POWER, MEANING LAWMAKERS CANNOT UNILATERALLY MOVE INTO THE MONEY BAIL TO THE JUDICIARY.

THEY ALSO FOUND OUT HOW THEY CAN DETAIN AN ALLEGED OFFENDER FOR CERTAIN CRIMES.

>> THE JUDICIARY PROTECTIVE AND AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT BAIL, TO DENY BAIL AND CONTROL THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A PROCESS AND PROCEDURE.

>> Reporter: THEY SAY THAT CRITICS DID NOT PROVE THEIR CASE AND THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD THEREFORE REVERSE THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION, WHICH WOULD MEAN NO MORE CASH BAIL IN ILLINOIS.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE SEPARATION OF POWER ISSUE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ARGUED THE PLAINTIFFS ARE TAKING AN EXPANSIVE VIEW OF JUDICIAL POWER AND TO NARROW A VIEW OF THE LEGISLATOR SCOPE.

>> THE LEGISLATURE IS CHARGED WITH MAKING BIG DECISIONS ABOUT THE WAY THAT THINGS SHOULD OPERATE IN THE STATE.

AND THAT IS THE KIND OF FUNDAMENTAL POINT HERE, THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE EXACTLY THAT DECISION ABOUT THE WAY THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED WHILE THEY ARE PENDING TRIAL AND PRESUMED INNOCENT.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT PROHIBITS THAT DECISION.

>> Reporter: OF THE DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL SAID WHILE LEGISLATORS HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF SETTING POLICY, THAT GOVERNS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A SENTENCE IS AWAITING TRIAL AND OVERTURNING THE SAFETY ACT WOULD JEOPARDIZE YEARS OF LAW .

LAWS LIKE MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES.

>> WHAT GRANT CLAIMS AN EXTRAORDINARY WINDFALL TO FIND THIS STRANGELY UNCONSTITUTIONA L AND TO STRIKE IT DOWN TO ALL PARTIES IN ENTIRETY BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE SOME HYPOTHETICAL CASE, IN WHICH THE COURT WANTS TO DETAIN A LOW LEVEL MISDEMEANOR AND LACK THE STATUTORY TO DO SO.

>> Reporter: THE JUSTICES DID HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

AND THE STATES ATTORNEY GOT OUT ONLY A SINGLE SENTENCE OF WHY HE BROUGHT THIS LAWSUIT WHEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE INTERJECTED WITH THE QUESTION.

THE SAFETY ACT PASSED WITH ONLY SUPPORT FROM DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS AND THE SUPREME COURT TESTIFIED BEFORE JUDGES, ONLY TWO WHO RAN AS REPUBLICANS.

THE COURTS TOOK THIS CASE ON AN EXPEDITED