Municipal Minute

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

Ancel Glink at the IAPD/IPRA 2026 Conference

  Wednesday, January 28, 2026    

For all of our park officials and employee readers who will be in attendance at the IAPD/IPRA conference this week, we hope you can stop by one or more of the sessions at which Ancel Glink attorneys will be presenting:

Thursday, 1/29/2026

1 - 2 pm - Session 112 - Real Estate 101, Scott Puma & David Silverman (Ancel Glink)

1 - 2 pm - Session 120 - Can We and Should We Have Video Surveillance in Parks & Facilities?, Megan Mack & Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

1 - 2 pm - Session 126 - From Ballot To Victory: Strategies for Successful Referendums, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer (Ancel Glink), Lauren Raspanti & Paul Henley

Friday, 1/30/2026

8:30 - 9:30 am - Session 110 - Legal/Legislative I, Derke Price (Ancel Glink) & Jason Anselment

3:30 - 4:30 pm - Session 119 - Regulating Controversial Park Activities, Eugene Bolotnikov, Katie Nagy & Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

Saturday, 1/31/2026

10:45 - 11:45 am - Session 115 - Be Prepared for Your First Amendment Audits, Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink)

10:45 - 11:45 am - Session 118 - Park District Finance - It's Not Intuitive, Adam Simon (Ancel Glink) & Mari-Lynn Peters

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 116 - Understanding Social Media: Facebook? Instagram? X?, Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink)

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 131 - Solar and Green Energy Options, Adam Simon (Ancel Glink), Erik Brown & Shawn Ajazi

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 133 - Managing Teen Takeover Events: Strategies, Challenges, and Collaborative Solutions, Derke Price (Ancel Glink) & Chief Steven Schindlbeck

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 129 - Boardmanship Essentials Part I, Scott Puma (Ancel Glink)

2 - 3 pm - Session 130 - Boardmanship Essentials Part II, Adam Simon (Ancel Glink)

2 - 3 pm - Session 122 - You Really Should Read Your Board Policy Manual (And Keep It Updated), Scott Puma & Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink)

2 - 3 pm - Session 128 - Parks Role in Successful Planning and Economic Development, David Silverman (Ancel Glink), Dan Bolin (Ancel Glink) & Jodi Mariano

  

  No Comments

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

Fourth Circuit Denies Injunctive Relief for Public Comment Interruptions

  Tuesday, January 27, 2026    

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on public comment at meetings in Platt v. Mansfield. Although the Fourth Circuit does not cover Illinois so this ruling is not binding on Illinois government bodies, the case is interesting because it provides a different perspective from the recent Public Access Counselor ruling (PAC Op. 26-001) that we reported on recently that struck down a public comment policy that prohibited comments that attacked public employees or officials.

The case involved a school board that offered an opportunity for public comment at its school board meetings pursuant to a school board policy. That policy prohibited public comment that targets, criticizes, or attacks individual students at meetings, and stated that these type of concerns must be raised privately to the appropriate school official. A group of individuals attended a school board meeting to express their concerns about a student who had been arrested for threats to another classmate, and claimed they were interrupted or not allowed to speak after the board ended the public comment period because of the content of their speech. They filed a lawsuit against the school board claiming that the school board discriminated against their viewpoint and that the board's public comment policy was unconstitutionally vague in violation of their free speech rights under the First Amendment. The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, and they appealed.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of injunctive relief, finding that the plaintiffs did not establish a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their claims to support their request for a preliminary injunction. The Court found that the public comment period of the school board meeting was a "limited public forum" and the school board had the right to establish content-neutral restrictions on the speach presented during that public comment period so long as those restrictions were not discriminatorily applied. The Court determined that the school board only interrupted speakers when they violated the school board's policy that prohibits comments that critized an individual student. The Court rejected the speakers' argument that they were discriminated against, finding that the interruptions during their comments were for violations of a facially constitutional speech policy. 





   /

  No Comments

Monday, January 26, 2026

Court Finds City Immune from Lawsuit in Case Involving Missing Person

  Monday, January 26, 2026    

An Illinois Appellate Court determined that a municipality had immunity from a lawsuit brought by a mother who claimed she suffered emotional distress caused by the municipality's failure to assist her in locating her missing daughter. Specifically, the court held that the city had immunity from liability for "failure to provide adequate police protection or service" under section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act. Bailey v. City of Chicago.

A mother called 911 to report her daughter missing after she went to her daycare center and the child was missing. She also asked the police to issue an Amber Alert. No police met with her at the daycare and no Amber Alert was issued, although her daughter was found about two hours after she was reported missing. The mother filed a lawsuit against the city claiming the city breached a duty of care. After the circuit court dismissed the complaint and denied her request to amend the complaint, she appealed to the Appellate Court, which upheld the circuit court's ruling, finding that her claims were barred by the Tort Immunity Act.

  No Comments

Thursday, January 22, 2026

PAC Finds OMA Violation for Restriction on Public Comment at Meeting

  Thursday, January 22, 2026    

The Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General's Office (PAC) issued its first binding opinion of 2026 finding a public body in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) by limiting a speaker during public comment. PAC Op. 26-001. 

An individual filed a request for review with the PAC claiming that a public body violated the OMA when the mayor interrupted her during her public comment before the village board at its meeting. Specifically, she claims the mayor told her she could not say the names of village trustees, turned off the audio system and had the microphone removed, tried to cut her off before her 3 minutes were up, and asked the police chief to remove her from the meeting. 

In response, the village board defended its actions, arguing that its public comment rules and Roberts Rules of Order allowed the mayor to enforce rules of decorum to avoid disruptions and maintain order at village meetings.

The PAC acknowledged that a public body could terminate "inflammatory comments" that cause disruption in order to ensure that its meetings can be conducted in an efficient manner. However, the PAC determined that this speaker had not made inflammatory comments and that any disruption to the meeting was created by the mayor improperly interfering with the speaker's right to address the board during public comment. The PAC also noted that the village board's public comment rules did not restrict speakers from naming village officials or employees during public comment, and questioned whether this type of rule would be consistent with the OMA. The PAC also suggested this type of rule could be unconstitutional if it was intended to censor protected critical speech against a public official. Because the speaker did not disrupt the meeting, the PAC determined that the village board's restrictions on her speech violated 2.06(g) of OMA (the provision of OMA that requires public bodies to provide members of the public with an opportunity to address the public body at its meetings).

  

  No Comments

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

City's Citizen Flag Pole a Public Forum, Not Government Speech

  Wednesday, January 21, 2026    

We previously reported on a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that a city's policy in allowing private groups to place flags on the city's flag pole rendered the speech protected speech under the First Amendment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed a similar challenge relating to a "citizen's flag pole" outside of a city hall in New Hampshire that allowed citizens to apply to the city for permission to fly their flag. In this case, a group wanted to fly a flag that read "Save Women's Sports" on the citizen's flag pole. The city initially allowed the flag, but then revoked its permission after receiving complaints that the flag was transphobic. 

The group sued, claiming that the city's revocation of its permission violated its First Amendment free speech rights. The group argued that the city had never denied citizen flag requests prior to revoking their permission, and that the action of the city was content-based viewpoint discrimination in violation of their free speech rights. The city defended its decision by arguing that the flag pole constituted government speech, so the city could control the message on the flag pole. 

The district court found the speech to be government speech but on appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the citizen's flag pole program was not government speech based on the U.S. Supreme Court's Shurtleff v. City of Boston decision, and that the city's revocation of the flag permit was viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Scaer v. City of Nashua

  

  No Comments

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Illinois General Assembly Introduces Bills Amending FOIA

  Tuesday, January 20, 2026    

The Illinois General Assembly was in session last week, which brings with it newly introduced legislation. Many of these bills are “shell bills” that will be amended with substantive language later in session, but a number of these introduced bills propose changes to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that would be relevant to local governments if they ultimately pass. 

A few of those bills (none of which have been voted on yet) are summarized below: 

HB 4395: If approved, this would amend various provisions of FOIA, including Section 2(a) of FOIA to add the “judicial branch and components to the judicial branch” to the definition of “public body” and Section 7 to add a new FOIA exemption for all records pertaining to the preparation of “judicial opinions and orders." Section 9.5(a) would also be amended to state that if the judicial branch and components deny a FOIA request, the requester cannot request review from the Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General (PAC). 

HB 4408: If approved, this would amend Section 7 of FOIA to add a new exemption for records created for administrative, correctional, or law enforcement purposes that include identifying or contact information of a minor who is a victim of secual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual violence.

HB 4409: If approved, this would amend the time for response to a FOIA request submitted to a law enforcement or correctional agency to 15 business days (rather than the current 5 business days). It would also allow an extension of 15 business days for requested records that require the agency to blur body camera footage or make other redactions because the records are partially exempt from disclosure.  

HB 4444: If approved, this would allow a public body to charge the actual cost for each hour spent by government personnel searching for a requested record or examining the record for redactions (current cost recovery is capped at $10). The bill would also remove the provision restricting the cost recovery provision to commercial requests only.  

HB 4445: If approved, this would add a new Section 10.5 to impose certain notice requirements on both the public body and the requester for requests for body worn camera recordings that are reasonably likely to be used for commercial purposes. These notice requirements would require notice to identifiable subjects in the recording prior to release of the records.

At this time, it is not clear how many of these bills (if any) will move forward but if they do, we will keep you posted. 

Post Authored by Natalie Cheung, Luigi Laudando & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

  

  No Comments

Thursday, January 15, 2026

Supreme Court Finds Candidate Has Standing to Challenge Illinois Vote Counting Law

  Thursday, January 15, 2026    

In another U.S. Supreme Court decision this week, the Court reversed the dismissal of a case filed by three candidates for political office that challenged the State of Illinois' procedure for counting mail-in ballots received after election day. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections. The district court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had dismissed the case, finding that the candidates did not have standing to challenge the state law. 

Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked or certified no later than election day and received within 2 weeks of election day. Three candidates for various offices sued the Illinois State Board of Elections claiming that the statute violates federal law, specifically that it conflicts with statutes that set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuits based on lack of standing.

On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that at least one of the candidates who had filed a lawsuit challenging the statute had a "personal stake" in the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election to satisfy the requirement for standing. The Court rejected the dissenting justices' argument that the candidates should have to show actual harm (not potential harm) to have standing to sue.

Note that this decision does not address the substance of the claims made by the candidates against the Illinois law, but simply holds that the candidates have standing to have those claims heard in court.

  

  No Comments

Wednesday, January 14, 2026

Supreme Court Finds No Fourth Amendment Violation in Warrantless Entry to Home

  Wednesday, January 14, 2026    

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion today in Case v. Montana, rejecting an argument that police officers must have "probable cause" to enter a home without a warrant when they encounter an emergency situation. The Court held that the proper test for the emergency exception to the warrant requirement is whether the officer was acting on an objective, reasonable belief that someone inside the home was seriously injured, imminently threatened with an injury, or needed emergency assistance, rather than the "probable cause" standard that applies in criminal cases. 

In this case, petitioner's ex-girlfield called police to report that petitioner had been drinking and was threatening suicide. Police officers were dispatched to do a welfare check and when they arrived, determined that the situation was serious and decided to enter the home to render emergency aid. An officer encountered the petitioner holding a black object that the officer thought was a gun, and the officer fired his own rifle. The petitioner was ultimately charged with assaulting a police officer after a handgun was found next to where petitioner stood. Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the evidence at trial, arguing that police had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his home without a warrant. The trial court denied the motion, finding that officers were responding to an emergency (an exception to the warrant requirement). 

The case was appealed and made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the trial court's ruling. The Court rejected petitioner's argument that the police officers had to show "probable cause" in order to exercise a warrantless search. Instead, officers must show that they had an "objectively reasonable basis for believing" that their intervention was necessary to prevent serious harm. Here, the officers demonstrated that they were aware of petitioner's mental health and alcohol abuse problems and that he had previously talked about committing suicide. They had statements from his ex-girlfriend that he had threatened to kill himself, and when they went to the home, he refused to respond to their knocking on his door. The Court found that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe petitioner needed emergency aid, so there was no Fourth Amendment violation of his rights in the warrantless entry.

  

  No Comments

Monday, January 12, 2026

Seventh Circuit Finds in Favor of City in Warrantless Entry and False Arrest Case

  Monday, January 12, 2026    

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against a City and several police officers, finding that the officers had probable cause to support the arrest and warrantless entry into the arrestee's home. Cannon v. Filip.

Plaintiff sued the City and several police officers claiming they violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his home without a warrant and arrested him for domestic battery. The police officers were acting on a 911 call that claimed the plaintiff was abusing a woman, and entered the home based on their belief that there was exigent circumstances since there was no answer at the home. After questioning both individuals in the home, the officers arrested plaintiff and charged him with domestic battery. Those charges were later dropped and he sued the City and officers. The district court ruled in favor of the City and officers and he appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the police officers had an objective reasonable basis to believe that someone in the home needed immediate aid and there was a compelling need to enter without a warrant. The basis for the officers' belief was the 911 call that there was a domestic violence situation at the home. The Court also rejected plainitff's false arrest claim, finding that there was sufficient probable cause for the arrest based on statements by the woman at the home.



  

  No Comments

Friday, January 9, 2026

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 100 - Lessons from a Local Government Law Career

  Friday, January 09, 2026    

We have a quorum! In this special 100th episode of Quorum Forum, we celebrate a major milestone by hosting a special live recording from Ancel Glink’s Chicago headquarters. Our featured guest is our friend and colleague, Julie Tappendorf, who joins us on the eve of her retirement to reflect on her career in local government law. In this career retrospective, Julie shares the professional lessons she learned along her journey—from her early days in military intelligence to becoming a local government lawyer.

Episode Highlights

• From Cryptology to Codes: Julie reflects on her eight years as a Korean cryptologic-linguist in the U.S. Army and how the discipline of military intelligence prepared her for legal practice.

• The Land Use Landscape: We review the evolution of development and annexation agreements. Julie explains how these contracts reduce adversarial friction and why formal agreements are critical for risk management.

• Municipal Minute: Julie shares the origin story of her award-winning blog, Municipal Minute, which has registered over 3.3 million visits. She discusses her foresight in identifying social media as a legal issue for local governments as early as 2011.

• Social Media After Lindke: What the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lindke v. Freed means for local officials. Julie provides essential advice on maintaining separate personal and official accounts and navigating the "actual authority" test.

• The Future of the Field: A candid discussion on the next "tweeting into trouble" moment—Artificial Intelligence. Julie warns about the risks of AI "hallucinations" and the importance of verifying legal output.

• Public Comment Segment: Ancel Glink attorneys share the most impactful lessons they have learned from Julie over the years, ranging from effective meeting procedures to the "gold standard" of responsiveness.

  

  No Comments

Thursday, January 8, 2026

City's Vehicle Forfeiture Program Not an Unconstitutional Taking

  Thursday, January 08, 2026    

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an Illinois municipality's vehicle forfeiture program was not an unconstitutional "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. O'Donnell v. City of Chicago.

The City adopted an ordinance authorizing it to immobilize, tow, impound, and ultimately dispose of vehicles in enforcing its traffic code. After the City exercised its authority and disposed of two vehicles, the vehicle owners sued the City claiming that its forfeiture scheme was an unconstitutional taking under both the U.S. and Illinois constitutions. The district court dismissed the claims, which was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal, finding that the City's forfeiture program (which included provisions for notice and a hearing and included graduated penalties for multiple violations of the traffic code) was an exercise of the City's police power to enforce its traffic code, a punitive remedy that does not constitute a taking.

  

  No Comments

Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Grand Jury Subpoena in Possession of School District Not Exempt From FOIA

  Wednesday, January 07, 2026    

A requester sued a school district claiming it violated FOIA by improperly redacting certain names and other information in a federal grand jury subpoena received by the district. As part of its defense of the lawsuit, the school district submitted an affidavit signed by the school board president stating that the district relied on an opinion by the U.S Attorney’s Office stating that the grand jury subpoena was exempt from disclosure under several exemptions in the federal FOIA statute, and that disclosure of the subpoena would violate federal law and interfere with a criminal investigation. The circuit court ruled in favor of the school district, finding that it did not violate FOIA, but ordered the school district to disclose a copy of the subpoena with certain information unredacted.

On appeal, the Appellate Court ruled that the circuit court erred in determining that the school district properly redacted recipient names and other information contained in the subpoena in Edgar County Watchdogs v. Paris Union School District No. 95.

First, the Appellate Court held that the school district’s reliance on an opinion by the U.S. Attorney’s Office was misplaced, because the request was submitted to an Illinois public body under the Illinois FOIA statute, so federal FOIA’s statutory exemptions were inapplicable to this request.

Second, the Appellate Court rejected the school district’s argument that names in the subpoena were exempt from disclosure under Section 7(1)(a) of FOIA, because the school district did not demonstrate that any federal law or statute specifically prohibited disclosing those names.

Third, the Appellate Court determined that names of school district officials and employees in the subpoena "bear on" the duties of public employees, so disclosure would not cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Section 7(1)(c) of FOIA.

Next, the Appellate Court held that because the school district is not a law enforcement or correctional agency, had no investigatory role in the federal grand jury proceedings, and was not conducting an ongoing criminal investigation, and the school district did not demonstrate that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had a substantial interest in protecting names in the subpoena, the subpoena was not exempt under the law enforcement exemptions cited by the district.

Finally, because the school district’s asserted exemptions were not applicable, and the circuit court previously ordered the school district to release certain information that was originally redacted in its response to the FOIA request, the Appellate Court determined that the requester was a “prevailing” party in the FOIA lawsuit and could file a petition requesting the recovery of attorneys fees and costs as the prevailing party.  

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

  

  No Comments

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)