Susan Hutchinson
Republican | Illinois
Candidate Profile
Moderate
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Susan Hutchinson
Party
Republican
Election Year
2022
Election
Primary
Race
Supreme Court District 2
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (2)
Local, County, and District Republican Organizations (2021)
Republican Women's Organizations (2008)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
Judge Hutchinson has served on the Second District Appellate Court of Illinois since 1994. Prior to that, she served as a judge on the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois.
Notable Cases:
- Village of Chadwick v. Nelson (2017): Judge Hutchinson wrote the majority opinion. Held that a local ordinance that prohibited the raising of cattle and other livestock was preempted by the Farm Nuisance Suit Act (2). Noted that municipalities had the authority to regulate nuisances and the definition of "nuisance" was traditionally left to the municipality under case law (4). Cited that "localities cannot adopt an ordinance that is contrary to state or federal law or that interferes with the supremacy of state or federal policy" (4). Observed that the legislature could have added a provision enabling defendant's action to be prohibited by the municipality, but it did not (5-6).
Village of West Dundee v. First United Methodist Church (2017): Judge Hutchinson wrote the majority opinion. Vacated the result of a trial because First United Methodist Church's amended countercomplaint was improperly dismissed by the trial court. The case dealt with a historic building owned by the church that had fallen into disrepair since 2004. In 2007, the church sought permission to demolish the building, but was denied and did not appeal the decision. In 2012, a Village inspector found that the property was in violation of multiple building codes. The Village requested a lien to be placed on the church for the costs of repair (estimated to be $600,000). The church's dismissed countercomplaint (dismissed for not stating a claim) alleged that the Village's requirement that the house be repaired, not destroyed, put a "substantial burden on its religious exercise" under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by driving the church towards bankruptcy (4). The countercomplaint also argued that the Village refusal to allow demolition constituted a taking, entitling the church to compensation (5). The Court held that the church was not required to have exhausted its remedies by appealing the earlier denial of demolition because it was the Village that had brought the church to court and precedent was consistent with that principle (7). Held that a complaint may not be dismissed for a failure to state a claim as long as the plaintiff presented a sufficient claim if its facts are presumed true (8). Cited precedent that a burden need not be disabling to be "substantial" (8-9). Held that RLUIPA applied because the church's request demolition was a "conversion of" real property under the statute's language (9). Clarified that the precedent of Stokovich and the relevant laws (discussing when repairs or demolitions might be performed) indicated that the " purpose of section 11-31-1(a) of the Municipal Code is to put unsafe buildings into safe condition with as minimal disruption to the owners’ property rights as is reasonably possible. Sometimes demolition and not repair will result in the least disruption; sometimes not. Whether this case is the former or the latter is a matter for the trial court to determine on remand" (14).
Jackson v. TSA Processing Chicago, Inc. (2021): Judge Hutchinson signed the majority opinion. Held that the circuit court improperly dismissed plaintiff Jackson's claim that he was discriminated against in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act; the lower court said that the claim was time barred and Jackson was not disabled within the meaning of section 1-103(I) of the Act (1). Jackson was fired from his metal-cutting job after he left work early on a hot day because of his congenital disability which prevented him from sweating normally (2). Trial court held that Jackson's claim was not timely because he did not file within 90 days of receiving a notice of substantial evidence from the Illinois Human Rights Department. Jackson said that the notice had initially been mailed to the wrong address, but the court said that he failed to rebut the presumption that he had received it (4). Trial court also held that the law did not apply to Jackson's disability because his disability prevented him from performing his job adequately (4). The Court of Appeals held that the claim was timely because the Department exercised its discretion by not dismissing Jackson's claim after the standard 90-day window had passed because it had re-sent the notice to the new address (10). Noted that facts are interpreted as most favorable to the plaintiff when stating claims (12). Held that trial court was wrong to dismiss plaintiff's claim by concluding that he "can’t perform the job if he can’t work in July in hot weather." The Court reasoned that the trial court was obligated to accept plaintiff's factual assertion that the day he was fired was an unusually hot day (13-14). Court noted that a "reasonable accommodation" could include allowing Jackson to use the sick days that he had accumulated, and it was not clear that some form of other reasonable accommodation did not exist (14).
Info from Other Sources:
- Judge Hutchinson is Highly Recommended by The Illinois State Bar Association based on her experience, written submissions, interviews, and interviews with lawyers who have practiced before her
Shaw Local News Network reported that Judge Hutchinson emphasized her limited role as a judge while she was on a panel at a Republican party forum. She said that the job of a judge was to interpret the law, rather than to say how she feels about it. The network reported that Hutchinson agreed with the other Illinois Supreme Court candidates on the panel that checks and balances were critical, "interpretation based on originality [sic] of the Illinois and the U.S. constitutions", and that she shared their opposition to the politicized process and gerrymandering in legislative redistricting.
Three-Headed Eagle Alliance and We the People of McHenry County IL Supreme Court Debate:
Judge Hutchinson stressed the importance of the separation of powers and said that legislature has overstepped its role by redistricting Illinois' judicial districts and that it had made a mess of the Access to Justice program. "Another one is the Supreme Court has rules that we proceed by, and the legislature has laws that we proceed by, but Supreme Court rules (forgive the statement) trump the legislative acts. And we have to protect that, and that is one of the things that I have sworn to do and have done." (24:45)
She said that the Court was correct to not intervene in the 2020 election if it did not have sufficient evidence of fraud from the trial record (30:28)
Judge Hutchinson said that parents must be involved to protect their children's education in schools (47:43)
When asked to define "woman" Judge Hutchinson said, "There are four of us up here. There are three men, and I am a woman. I think it is who you are-- how you were born, but I cannot say that if you are old enough and go through all of the testing that is required that you don't feel the way you look that you cannot avail yourself of some remedy. I just can't say that. But now, I qualify, if you are old enough and you have passed the numerous testing that is required before anybody can go through that process." Said that she cannot change the choice of Bruce Jenner, and that it goes back to the amendments and our freedoms (1:23:45)
Emphasized her experience and said that she was not a legislator and was not supposed to be when on the Court. "We can't legislate. That's not our job. I don't want that job, trust me" (1:38:49)
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Did not answer
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Did not answer
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
Did not answer
Why should the voters choose you?
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Did not answer
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
Did not answer
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
Did not answer
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
Did not answer
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Did not answer
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Did not answer
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
Did not answer
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
Did not answer
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
Did not answer
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
Did not answer
