Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias

896 N.E.2d 277 (2008)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias

Illinois Supreme Court
896 N.E.2d 277 (2008)

Facts

There were nine licensed riverboat casinos in Illinois. Four upstate casinos, including Empress Casino Joliet (collectively, Empress) (plaintiffs), had adjusted gross receipts (AGRs) of over $200 million, whereas five downstate casinos had substantially lower AGRs. In 2005, the Illinois legislature began considering Public Act 94-804 (the statute), which proposed imposing a 3 percent surcharge on casinos with AGRs over $200 million in 2004. The surcharge proceeds were to be distributed to racetracks and other entities involved in horse racing in Illinois. The legislature found that riverboat gaming had negatively impacted Illinois’ horse-racing industry. The legislature concluded that distributing riverboat-casino revenue to the horse-racing entities would reduce those negative impacts and ensure that horse racing continued to contribute to Illinois’ economy. The legislature thus passed the statute in 2006. Empress brought an action against the Illinois Racing Board and Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (collectively, Giannoulias) (defendants), asserting that the statute was unconstitutional. Empress argued that the statute violated the uniformity clause of the Illinois Constitution and the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. Empress also asserted that the statute violated the public-funds clause of the Illinois Constitution because the legislature had acted to benefit a private interest without a corresponding public benefit. The trial court granted summary judgment for Empress. The court found that the statute violated the uniformity clause because there was no real and substantial difference between the casinos that were and were not subject to the surcharge, and no reasonable basis had been provided to classify the casinos differently. Giannoulias had argued that the classification was reasonable because casinos with AGRs over $200 million could better absorb the surcharge, but the trial court rejected that argument. Giannoulias appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. On appeal, Empress disputed the legislature’s justification for the surcharge and presented a report from an economic analyst opining that riverboat casinos were not the primary factor in the decline of wagering at Illinois horse-racing tracks.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Burke, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership