Updates on cases, laws, and other topics of interest to local governments

Subscribe by Email

Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Disclaimer

Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Monday, October 20, 2025

Local Government Law Institute 2025


It's that time of year for all of my local government lawyer readers and friends to register for this year's Local Government Law Institute hosted by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (IICLE). This year's conference will be held on Friday, December 5, 2025, from 8:55 to 3:45 pm. at the UBS Center in Chicago, with a cocktail reception to follow. The conference will be offered by webcast as well.

As always, the agenda for this annual conference is packed with educational and informational (and often entertaining) local government law topics, including the following "can't miss" sessions:

  • Case Law and Legislative Update
  • Development and Economic Incentives
  • The First Amendment & Public Forum Spaces
  • Federalism
  • Local Government Attorney's Guide to What Not to Do in Employment Law
  • Intergovernmental Cooperation: How to Work Together and Tips for Drafting IGAs
  • Ethical Issues and AI in Local Government Law
More information about this year's conference and registration can be found on IICLE's website here.

Thursday, October 16, 2025

Illinois General Assembly Passes Bill Amending OMA and FOIA


Both houses of the Illinois General Assembly passed SB 243 that amends the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act in a number of ways. The bill (which passed October 15, 2025) now goes to the Governor for his signature. If signed by the Governor, the bill states it would become effective on January 1, 2026.

1.    Meetings of Public Bodies Prohibited on Election Day

The bill would amend the OMA to prohibit public bodies from holding or scheduling a regular or special meeting on the day of a general, consolidated, or primary election. 

2.   Military Service as a Reason to Attend Meeting Remotely

The bill would also amend the OMA to add language allowing a member of a public body to attend a meeting remotely for the member's "performance of active military duty as a service member." Note that the bill did not change the requirement that a quorum of the public body be physically present to conduct a meeting.

3.     Township OMA Training Option

The bill would further amend the OMA to allow members of township boards to obtain the required OMA training through a course sponsored or conducted by an organization that represents townships created under the Township Code. This new provision is similar to provisions allowing members of municipal, school district, park district, fire protection district, soil and water conservation district, and drainage district public bodies to take training courses offered by organizations that represent those bodies rather than the electronic training offered by the Attorney General's office.  

4.    Immunity for Compliance with PAC Opinion

The bill would also amend provisions relating to the Public Access Counselor's office to clarify that officers and employees of a public body are immune from liability if they disclose records in accordance with an opinion of the PAC office.

5.    Section 4 FOIA Posting Requirements

Section 4 of FOIA currently requires public bodies to post certain information (description of the public body and its subdivisions, total operating budget, offices, number of employees, members of advisory bodies, FOIA procedures, etc.) at its administrative offices. This bill would amend section 4 to require posting only on the public body's website rather than at the administrative offices (unless the public body has no website, in which case the information must be posted at the administrative offices). 

6.    Junk Mail Excluded from FOIA Definition of Public Records

The bill would amend the FOIA to clarify that public records for purposes of FOIA expressly excludes "junk mail." Junk mail is defined as unsolicited commercial mail or email sent to a public body and not responded to by an official, employee, or agent of the public body. 

7.    Electronic FOIA Submissions Must Be in Body of Submission

The bill would amend FOIA to require that electronic FOIA requests include the request in the body of the electronic submission, rather than as an attachment or hyperlink, for cybersecurity reasons. If a public body receives an attachment or hyperlink request, it must notify the requester of the new requirement that requests must be in the body of the submission.

8.    Verification that FOIA Requester is a Person

The bill would amend FOIA to allow a public body that has a reasonable belief that a request was not submitted by a person to require the requester to verify orally or in writing that the requester is a person. The deadline for response would be tolled until the requester verifies that he or she is a person and if the requester fails to do so, the public body can deny the request.

9.    New FOIA Exemptions

The bill would also amend FOIA to add a couple of new exemptions for records held by a criminal justice agency and documents deemed sensitive by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Note that this bill has not yet been enacted into law - it needs the Governor's signature to become effective.

Friday, October 10, 2025

Homeowner Not Entitled to Compensation for Property Damage in Search of Home


The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a homeowner's Fifth Amendment "takings" claim lawsuit brought against a city and county seeking compensation for damages caused by law enforcement officers who entered her home pursuant to a search warrant to search for a fugitive they incorrectly believed was inside the home. Hadley v. City of South Bend, Ind.

In 2022, law enforcement believed that a murder suspect was residing in a South Bend home based on social media posts and the suspect's IP address, and obtained a search warrant to search the home for the suspect. Although the homeowner informed the officers that she had no connection with, or knowledge of, the suspect, officers forcefully entered her home, breaking windows, launching 30 cannisters of tear gas, wrecking internal security cameras, punching holes in walls, ransacking furniture and a closet, and tearing down a wall panel and fan. The suspect was not found in the home.

When the city and county refused to reimburse the homeowner for the damages to her home, she filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city and county, claiming that law enforcement violated the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it damaged her property and that she was owed $16,000 in "just compensation." The district court dismissed her case, and she appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment did not entitle her to compensation, holding that the government is not obligated to compensate for property damage resulting from law enforcement officers executing a lawful search warrant. Because the warrant was lawful, the Seventh Circuit held that her lawsuit against the city and county was properly dismissed as she was not entitled to compensation for the property damages.


Thursday, October 9, 2025

From The Workplace Report: Opinion Letter Issued by DOL on Calculating Overtime


In case you don't already follow Ancel Glink's employment law blog, The Workplace Report (and you should!), you may want to check out a recent blog post about a Department of Labor opinion letter clarifying that "emergency pay" premiums provided to firefighters and other non-exempt employees during declared emergencies must be included in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime premiums under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 

You can read the blog post at the following link: Opinion Letter Issued by the Department of Labor on Calculating Overtime

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

Ancel Glink at the APA-IL Conference


If you are attending the American Planning Association Illinois State Chapter's (APA-IL) Conference this week, be sure to stop by to check out one or more of the sessions presented by Ancel Glink attorneys:

Wednesday, October 8th 

2:15 pm -3:15 pm - Municipal Initiated Upzonings: Lessons Learned

Presenters: Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink), Katharyn Hurd (City of Chicago), Eric Van Buskirk (City of Champaign), and Meagan Jones (City of Evanston)

Thursday, October 9th

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm     Injunctions & Dragons: Planning Law Fantasy Adventure

Presenters:  Dan Bolin (Ancel Glink), Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink), Trevor Dick (Village of Lombard), and Phil Green (Village of Hoffman Estates)

3:30 pm - 4:30 pm     GovLove + APA-IL Live Podcast: Award-Winning Planners

Presenters: Dan Bolin (Ancel Glink) and Andy Cross (The Lakota Group)

3:30 pm - 4:30 pm     Small But Mighty: ADUs, Tiny Homes & Cottage Communities

Presenters: Greg Jones (Ancel Glink), Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink), David Silverman (Ancel Glink), Angela Mesaros (Village of Homewood), Falon Young (City of Chicago), and Samar Jha (AARP)

3:30 pm - 4:30 pm     "Wait" A Ride: Navigating the Regulatory Landscape of E-Bikes and E-Scooters

Presenters: Eugene Bolotnikov (Ancel Glink) and Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

Friday, October 10th

2:15 pm - 3:15 pm     E-Scooters, E-Bikes & Public Camping Regulations: Strategies for Municipal Planners to Avoid Legal Roadblocks

Presenters: Megan Mack (Ancel Glink) and Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)


Tuesday, October 7, 2025

Workers Compensation Benefits Barred Where Pension Board Denied Line-of-Duty Benefits


An Illinois Appellate Court recently held that a pension board's decision to deny line-of-duty benefits and award a police department employee a non-duty pension barred him from receiving workers compensation benefits for that injury. City of Zion Police Department v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission.

A detective in a city police department filed an application for workers compensation benefits for bilateral wrist injuries he claimed he sustained while performing a “burpee” exercise during a firearms training event. The city argued that the employee's workers compensation claim was barred due to a prior decision by a pension board that had denied the employee's request for line-of-duty disability benefits and awarded him nonduty disability benefits for the wrist injuries. Both the arbitrator and the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission ruled in favor of the employee, finding that the issues litigated before the pension board were different than those presented in the workers compensation case. The city appealed.

On appeal, the circuit court reversed the Workers Compensation Commission's decision, and held that the employee was "collaterally estopped" from relitigating the issues relating to his wrist injuries, where that issue had already been decided by the pension board when it found that his wrist injuries were not caused by the training exercise. The employee appealed to the Appellate Court, which agreed with the circuit court that the employee was bound by the pension board's decision that his wrist injuries were not duty-related (which he did not appeal). As a result, the employee did not qualify for workers compensation benefits for the wrist injuries.

Disclaimer: Ancel Glink represented the City in this case.

Monday, October 6, 2025

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 97: Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement


Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast recently released Episode 97: Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement.

In this episode, Ancel Glink partner David S. Silverman, FAICP, provides an in-depth breakdown of the essential components and negotiation strategies for drafting effective Redevelopment Agreements (RDAs) from his presentation at the Southland Development Authority’s TIF Talk training session. David explains that the RDAs serve as a clear roadmap for the project, governing everything from development specifics to the flow of incentives and guarantees, requiring an internal logic that ensures it remains understandable for potentially decades. 

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

Involuntary Annexation Upheld by Appellate Court


An Illinois Appellate Court recently upheld a municipality's involuntary annexation of property in Husky Trans, Inc. v. Village of Barrington Hills

After the village board discussed the possible annexation of two unincorporated parcels of land, it sent notice to the owner that the village board would consider annexing the parcels at a board meeting. The notice also informed the owner that the property would be rezoned to the R1 single family residential zoning district upon annexation. The owner's attorney sent a response to the village that the owner objected to the forcible annexation, arguing that the parcels did not qualify for annexation under section 7-1-13 of the Illinois Municipal Code because the parcels were not "wholly bounded" by one or more municipalities, forest preserve, or park district property. 

After the village board annexed the property, the owner filed a lawsuit, claiming that the village lacked authority to annex the parcels because, among other things, the territory was not “wholly bounded” by one or more municipalities or a forest preserve or park district as is required by section 7-1-13 of the Illinois Municipal Code. The owner argued that two "gaps" in the boundary of the annexed parcels abutted unincorporated territory, thus defeating the annexation. The village responded that the gaps abutting railroad right-of-way should be treated differently for purposes of annexation and, in any event, the minor gaps in the boundary were "de minimus" and should not support invalidation of the annexation. 

The trial court ruled in the owner's favor, finding that the gaps in the boundary invalidated the annexation. The village appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed, holding that the annexation was valid. The Court agreed with the village that the annexed territory was entirely surrounded as required by state statute except for two small gaps created by railroad right-of-way. Since those gaps represented only 4.7 percent of the total perimeter of the annexed property, the Court found them to be inconsequential and insufficient to defeat the "wholly bounded" requirement of the annexation statute. As a result, the Court held that the annexation was valid.


Tuesday, September 30, 2025

Ancel Glink at the 2025 ILA Conference


Ancel Glink attorneys Julie Tappendorf and Erin Monforti will be speaking at multiple sessions at this year's Illinois Library Association (ILA) conference taking place October 14-16 in Rosemont. If you will be at the ILA conference, we hope you can stop in to one (or more) of our sessions and say hi.

Ready for Anything: Responding to First Amendment Audits

  • Tuesday, October 14, 2:45 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.
  • Speakers: Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink; Dustin Smaby, Vernon Area Public Library District 

Courageous Belonging: Navigating Public Backlash and the First Amendment with Care 

  • Wednesday, October 15, 1:45 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.
  • Speakers: Holly Bartecki, Jasculca Terman Strategic Communications; Kelly Durov, Northbrook Public Library; Kate Hall, Northbrook Public Library; Stacy Oliver, Northbrook Public Library; Elizabeth Rupert, Joffe Emergency Services; Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink; Linda Vering, Northbrook Public Library 

Book Bans and Intellectual Freedom for Trustees 

  • Thursday, October 16, 11:00 a.m. - noon
  • Speakers: Sheri Doniger, Lincolnwood Public Library District; Becky Keane, Niles-Maine District Library; Elizabeth Lynch, Addison Public Library; Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink 
  • Presented by the Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC)

Keeping it Legal on Social Media

  • Thursday, October 16, 3:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
  • Speaker: Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
  • Presented by the Library Trustee Forum (LTF)

Friday, September 26, 2025

Charges Brought in Wisconsin Regarding an Unlawful Recording of Closed Meeting


Interesting development out of Wisconsin where two individuals were arrested for recording a closed session meeting of a county board. According to news reports, a city administrator and his sister were arrested after surveillance video showed that the city administrator's sister had placed her phone against the door to a closed meeting of the county board in an attempt to intercept the discussions during the closed meeting. Authorities charged both with intercepting an oral communication during a closed session which, in Wisconsin, is a Class H felony subject to fines of $1,000 and up to six years of prison time. The city administrator was charged after authorities discovered communications between the two that took place on Facebook Messenger during and about the incident. 

WPR reporting available here.

Thursday, September 25, 2025

Illinois Federal Court Applies Lindke Test in Social Media Lawsuit


Thanks to one of our blog readers for sending today's case which involves the application of the "actual authority" test that was adopted in 2024 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed case that applies to challenges to a public officials' or employees' actions on social media.

In 2015, a candidate for the office of Illinois state representative created a Facebook page. She won her election, and in 2024, created a separate "house minority leader" Facebook page where she engaged with citizens. She also continued to post on her original Facebook page and interact with citizens about state business. After someone posted critical comments on her original Facebook page, she deleted the negative comments and blocked the individual from her page. The individual then sued the state representative, claiming that the official's actions violated her First Amendment and civil rights.

This week, an Illinois district court judge dismissed the case on several bases, including that the complaint did not satisfy the two-part "actual authority" test that was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in Lindke v. Freed. We reported on the Lindke case previously. In order for a government official's or employee's activities on social media (e.g., deleting comments or banning or blocking persons from commenting on their social media pages) to be considered "state action" for purposes of a First Amendment civil rights lawsuit, the person suing must show that the government official or employee (1) had actual authority to speak on behalf of the government on a particular matter and (2) purported to exercise that authority in the action being challenged.

Here, the court found that the complaint did not contain sufficient allegations that the state representative had "actual authority" in this matter. Specifically, the court said that the complaint did not refer to any law, policy, or regulation that vested the state representative with authority to speak on the state's behalf. The court acknowledged that the minority leader may have some authority to speak on the state's behalf, but the plaintiff had not identified any express authority, and that simply discussing state business on social media is not sufficient to meet the first prong of the Lindke test. The court also noted that the complaint failed to meet the second prong of the Lindke case since the plaintiff did not point to any specific Facebook posts where the state representative exercised actual authority to speak on the state's behalf.

In sum, the court dismissed the complaint, although has allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint if he can cure the deficiencies noted in the court's ruling. We will keep an eye on this case and report back if there are new developments. This case is worth a read for government officials and employees seeking guidance on how a court might apply the new Supreme Court two-part "actual authority" test for social media activities.

Devore v. McCombie


Friday, September 19, 2025

City Could Withhold Employment Taxes from PEDA Benefits


The Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion this week finding that the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act (commonly referred to as PEDA), does not prohibit a city from withholding employment taxes from payments made under the PEDA statute. Bitner v. City of Pekin.

Two former police officers had applied for and were granted PEDA benefits after they were injured in the line of duty. PEDA provides that eligible employees who suffer an injury in the line of duty that causes them to be unable to perform their duties are entitled to be paid by their employer on the same basis as before their injury for a period up to a year. PEDA also states that no deduction can be made for sick leave credits, compensatory time for overtime accumulations or vacation, or service credits in a pension fund while the employee is receiving PEDA benefits. The officers filed a lawsuit, claiming that PEDA prohibited the city from withholding employment taxes (federal and state income taxes, social security taxes, and Medicare taxes) from their PEDA benefits. The trial court ruled in favor of the officers, but on appeal, the appellate court ruled in favor of the city, and the officers appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Illinois Supreme Court analyzed the language of section 1(b) of PEDA, and determined that there was no express language prohibiting an employer from withholding employment taxes, unlike the express prohibition in PEDA for leave deductions. The Court also held that the officers failed to provide any evidence that PEDA payments were exempt from federal income tax, and did not point to any statute or IRS ruling that prohibits a government employer from withholding taxes from PEDA payments. As a result, the Court held that employees receiving PEDA benefits could seek a refund or adjust their tax withholding to address the tax issue, rather than requiring employers to determine whether an employee has or does not have a tax liability. In sum, the Illinois Supreme Court found in favor of the city, holding that PEDA did not prohibit the city from withholding employment taxes from the PEDA benefits paid to the two officers.