CUNNINGTON'S RULING SAYING, "THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS AN INHERENT POWER OF THE COURTS UPON WHICH THE LEGISLATURE MAY NOT INFRINGE AND SETTING OF BAIL FALLS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER.

APPROPRIATENESS OF BAIL RESTS WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT AND MAY NOT BE DETERMINED BY LEGISLATIVE," HIS INTERPRETATION DECLARING PARTS OF THE REACTION?

>> I WOULD DISAGREE.

WE'LL WAIT FOR AN ORDER IN ORDER TO APPEAL THIS TO THE SUPREME COURT.

AS WE STATED IN OUR BRIEFS, IN OUR ARGUMENT TO THE COURT WE DON'T THINK THIS INFRINGES ON THE INHERENT JUDICIAL POWER.

IN FACT, THE LEGISLATION IS GIVEN POWER TO REGULATE HOW JUDGES, FOR INSTANCE, SENTENCE THEIR MANDATORY MINIMUMS AND MANDATORY MAXIMUMS.

SO THERE ARE AREAS OF OVERLAPPING AUTHORITY AND PRETRIAL DETENTION IS ONE OF THEM AND IN PARTICULAR WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SAFE-T ACT I THINK THAT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE IS, IN FACT, IT EXPANDED THE JUDICIAL DISCRETION WITH REGARDS TO PRETRIAL DETENTION.

>> I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION RIGHT NOW AS TO WHAT THIS MEANS FOR JANUARY 1st BECAUSE YOU'VE SAID THAT THE JUDGE HAS DECLARED THIS PART OF THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT IT CAN STILL GO INTO EFFECT IN PLACES LIKE COOK COUNTY, LAKE COUNTY THAT WERE NOT ON THIS LAWSUIT.

HOW CAN A LAW BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT CERTAIN COUNTIES CAN STILL GO AHEAD WITH IT ANYWAY?

>> WELL, NORMALLY IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN AN OR TO RESTRAIN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW, IT WOULD BE DONE BY INJUNCTION AND IN THIS CASE THE PLAINTIFF DID REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION AND THE JUDGE DENIED IT.

SO THIS JUDGE'S DECISION DOES NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL VALUE IN OUR COUNTIES BECAUSE, QUITE FRANKLY IT, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PRECEDENTIAL VALUE ON ANY JUDGE.

ANY JUDGE IN ANY ONE OF THE OTHER COUNTIES CAN MAKE A DECISION IF A DEFENDANT ASKS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAFE-T ACT IN THEIR CASE THAT, YOU KNOW, EACH AND EVERY JUDGE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON THAT.

>> IS IT ODD THERE IS NO INJUNCTION IN THIS DECISION MEANING DESPITE THE JUDGE'S INTERPRETATION THE LAW DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PUT ON PAUSE WHILE IT GOES THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM AND GOES UP TO THE SUPREME COURT?

>> WELL, NO.

I THINK THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE DECISION NOT TO HAVE AN INJUNCTION.

HOWEVER, I DISAGREE WITH THE NOTION, THE CONCLUSION THAT UNCONSTITUTIONALITY EITHER BASED ON SEPARATION OF POWERS OR THE SURETIES CLAUSE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION.

THE SURETIES CLAUSE IN PARTICULAR DOES NOT MEAN NECESSARILY CASH BAIL.

>> THE STATE SUPREME COURT YOU'VE SAID YOU'LL APPEAL IT.

IT WOULD SEEM TO GO IN YOUR FAVOR BECAUSE IT'S A 5-2 DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY ON THE STATE SUPREME COURT.

WHAT'S THE TIMELINE HERE FOR AN APPEAL AND A DECISION THERE?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T THINK PARTISAN AFFILIATION IMPACTS THE -- THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO ITS CREDIT HASN'T BEEN MAKING DECISIONS LARGELY IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES BASED ON PARTISAN BASIS.

SO TO ITS CREDIT, IT HAS AVOIDED DOING SO AND LOOKED AT THE LAW AND THE MERITS AND THE HISTORY OF PRECEDENT AND I THINK IT WILL DO SO IN THIS CASE AND OVERTURN THIS JUDGE'S DECISION WITH REGARDS TO CONSTITUTIONALITY.

WITH REGARDS TO TIMING, IT'S DIFFICULT TO PREDICT WHAT THE TIMING WILL BE.

WE'LL CERTAINLY -- AS SOON AS THERE'S AN APPEALABLE ORDER, WE WILL MAKE THAT APPEAL AND START THE PROCESS.

>> ATTORNEY GENERAL KWAME RAOUL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> NOW WE'RE JOINED BY THE STATE'S ATTORNEY FROM DOWNSTATE JACKSON COUNTY.

STATE'S ATTORNEY VEER IS AN CERVANTES, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

CAN YOU TELL US WHY YOU BELIEVE THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

>> THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE BEING HERE AND BEING ABLE TO EXPRESS MY OPINION.

I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THE LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BASED ON THE ILLINOIS STATE CONSTITUTION, BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT MANY OF THE STATE'S ATTORNEYS I DON'T THINK THE ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION RIGHT NOW, WHICH I AM A PART OF, BUT A LOT OF THIS DIDN'T HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER WE AGREED WITH THE ISSUE OR NOT.

A LOT OF IT WAS STRICTLY ON THE FOUNDATION WHETHER THIS WAS STRUCKAL AND I THINK FOR THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SEVERAL ADVOCATES OF THIS LAW, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOWN.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN IS SIMPLE.

WHILE WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS BEING RELEASED WITHOUT CASH BAIL, THAT MAY BE PERFECTLY WELL AND FINE, BUT THEN WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE GOING TO BE IN JAIL WITH NO CASH BOND AND THAT IS A SERIOUS ISSUE, ONE THAT HASN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT, BUT AS WE WORK WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS ACROSS SOUTHERN ILLINOIS, THEY START TO REALIZE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FOREVER WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS IN OUR JAIL THAT ARE SHACKLED AND UNABLE TO POST BOND.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VERY DISCONCERTING TO ME.

>> THIS IS THE PART OF THE LAW THAT YOU FOUND PROBLEMATIC.

THERE'S NO EXPLICIT INJUNCTION IN THIS RULING.

DOES THAT MEAN COME JANUARY 1st THAT JUDGES CAN DECIDE TO DO AWAY WITH CASH BAIL?

>> I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS, BUT I THINK THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO RULE ON THAT VERY QUICKLY.

THERE'S NO DOUBT WE'LL SEE SEVERAL DIFFERENT RULINGS THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS.

THE PARTIES THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE LAWSUIT NO DOUBT ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO ROLL OUT OR IMPLEMENT THIS PART OF THE SAFE- T ACT UNLESS SOMEBODY STEPS IN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, BUT IT'S THE COUNTIES THAT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ACCORDING TO THE RULING FROM KANKAKEE THAT WE'LL SEE A LOT OF RULINGS FROM.

I ANTICIPATE SEVERAL TROs OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS FILED THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS SIMPLY HAVING COUNTIES RAISE THEIR HAND AND SAY HEY, WHAT ABOUT ME?

THIS SHOULDN'T APPLY TO ME EITHER.

I EXPECT THAT TO START HAPPENING AS EARLY AS TOMORROW.

>> SO A LOT OF CONFUSION HERE AND NOW THIS IS GOING TO GO TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE THERE?

>> IF I COULD GUESS THE OUTCOME OF WHAT THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT'S GOING TO DO, I WOULDN'T BE WORKING FOR A LIVING.

SO I'D LIKE TO RESERVE THAT PARTICULAR OPINION.

I DO KNOW THAT THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY GIVES THE RIGHT TO ILLINOIS CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO BE INNOCENT AND CLAIM THEIR INNOCENCE UNTIL THEY'RE PROVEN GUILTY.

ITS IS SPECIFICALLY IN SECTION 9 THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BAIL.

ONE THING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SAY HE BELIEVES THIS BILL GIVES DISCRETION TO THE JUDGES, I BELIEVE IF HE GOT JUDGES OFF THE RECORD, THEY COULD DISAGREE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE INTERPRETATION THAT ILLINOIS STATE'S ATTORNEYS HAVE AND IT'S NOT THE INTERPRETATION THAT I'VE HEARD FROM JUDGES.

MAKE NO MISTAKE.

I'M NOT IN SPRINGFIELD.

I'M HERE IN A STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THE COURTROOM TRYING CASES.

THIS IS WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD.

SO FROM MY EXPERIENCE AND POINT OF VIEW, THIS HAS BEEN DISASTROUS AND WITH ONLY THREE DAYS LEFT WE SHOULD BE A LOT FARTHER ALONG.

>> A LOT UP IN THE ALONG AND MAYBE TROs FILED IN THE NEXT