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

Friday, December 12, 2025

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Validity of Constitutional Amendment Election


In a recent election contest lawsuit, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of a challenge to a 2022 constitutional amendment election. Weckbacher, et al. v. Watson, et al.

After a constitutional amendment was passed by Illinois voters at the 2022 general election (the Workers Rights Amendment that incorporated employee rights to collectively organize and bargain into Article I of the Illinois constitution), a group of plaintiffs sued the State Board of Elections (Board) to invalidate the election. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit argued the ballot used in the election, and approved by the Board, was illegal because it did not print the text of the constitutional amendment, was not labeled as a “Constitutional Ballot,” and was not provided to voters as a separate ballot from the “Official Ballot” containing the names of candidates for elected office. Based on these alleged ballot issues, the plaintiffs sought a judicial declaration that the ballot used for the constitutional amendment was illegal, and that the election be declared invalid, null, and void.

The Board moved to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that since plaintiffs failed to claim how any irregularities would have changed the election results or allowed a court to declare the election void, the lawsuit was deficient. The Board also argued the circuit court lacked authority over the case because plaintiffs did not follow the state law governing election contests for constitutional amendments. The circuit court ruled for the Board and dismissed the lawsuit after finding the plaintiffs’ claims were not timely and the court lacked authority over the lawsuit.

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit. First, the Appellate Court agreed that the circuit court lacked authority over the case by noting that circuit courts in Illinois can only hear election contest cases as provided for by the Illinois Election Code. Under Illinois law, there are limited avenues for a plaintiff to challenge the results of an election. While the Election Code authorizes claims challenging the results of a constitutional amendment election because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of the election, the code does not allow claims challenging the validity of an election. As the plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenged the Board’s administrative actions in certifying the constitutional amendment ballot and did not challenge the actual results of the constitutional amendment election, the Appellate Court agreed that the circuit court lacked authority over the plaintiff’s lawsuit. 

Second, the Appellate Court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to state a proper claim for declaratory relief on the validity of the constitutional amendment ballot. In this case, over a year had passed since the Board certified the constitutional amendment to the ballot and the election results were finalized. As the constitutional amendment election was over by the time plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, the Appellate Court determined there was no longer an ongoing dispute between the plaintiffs and the Board and agreed that the lawsuit failed to state a claim for declaratory relief.

Post Authored by Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink

Thursday, December 11, 2025

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Library Book Removal Case


Earlier this year, we reported on a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case that dismissed a First Amendment lawsuit brought by library patrons against a Texas library after the library removed 17 books because of their content. Two of the books the library removed were "Larry the Farting Leprechaun" by Jane Bexley and "My Butt is so Noisy!" by Dawn McMillian. The patrons argued that the library's removal of books based on their content violated their right to receive information under the free speech clause. The district court agreed and issued a preliminary injunction against the library, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the "right of information" does not apply to a public library's decision to remove books because the library's collection decisions are government speech and not subject to free speech protections under the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected the patron's claims that the library's removal of the books constituted "book banning" because the patrons could still purchase the books from a bookstore or online.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on December 8, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear the library patron's appeal, allowing the Fifth Circuit's decision to dismiss the First Amendment lawsuit to stand.

The Fifth Circuit's decision was a departure from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Pico, which held that the First Amendment restricts libraries from removing books simply because they dislike the ideas in those books.

The American Library Association (ALA) had filed an "amicus" (friend of the court) brief in the case urging the Supreme Court to hear the library patron's appeal of the Fifth Circuit's decision. You can read the ALA's take on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to deny certiorari, which allows the Fifth Circuit's decision to stand here.


Wednesday, December 10, 2025

Court Dismisses Discrimination Charge relating to Code Enforcement Action


An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a municipality in a housing discrimination case that had been dismissed for lack of substantial evidence by the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Schoff v. Illinois Human Rights Commission.

The owners of a single family home provided short-term housing. When the village discovered the home was being used for short-term rentals (which use was prohibited by ordinance), it brought an administrative enforcement action against the owners. The owners responded by requesting a reasonable accommodation under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to continue to provide short term housing, arguing that they were providing short-term housing to those in need based on their religious beliefs. The village and the owners agreed to settle the administrative enforcement action, which included, among other provisions, a grant of a religious accommodation to allow the owners to house short-term occupants so long as they provided notice to the village. The agreement also included a provision for the village to inspect the home's septic system. During its inspection, the village discovered that two unpermitted bedrooms had been added to the home, resulting in the septic system being too small for the number of bedrooms in the home. The village informed the owners they had to remove the bedrooms or increase their septic system. When the owners failed to do so, the village issued citations for ordinance violations.

The owners then filed a discrimination charge with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) claiming that the village's enforcement actions discriminated against them on the basis of race, national origin, and religion. The owners also filed a lawsuit in circuit court claiming violations of federal and state laws and the U.S. Constitution, which case is unrelated to this opinion and was still pending.

After an investigation of the charge of discrimination, the IDHR issued a report recommending that the owners' discrimination charge be dismissed. That decision was appealed to the Illinois Human Rights Commission, which upheld the dismissal of the charge of discrimination. The Commission determined that the owners did not provide evidence that the village discriminated against them on the basis of race, national origin, or religion in enforcing its septic code requirements. 

On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the discrimination charge. The Court noted that the village had granted a reasonable accommodation in its settlement agreement with the owners. Further, the Court found no intent on the village's part to discriminate against the owner when it enforced its septic code requirements, and that the owners were still able to use their home with the limits on the number of bedrooms. In sum, the Court found no evidence of an intent to discriminate or harassment on the part of the village on the basis of religion, race, or national origin.

Tuesday, December 9, 2025

PAC Finds that Imposing a "Redaction Charge" Violates FOIA


The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor's (PAC) office released its 14th opinion for 2025 finding a public body in violation of FOIA for charging a fee for redaction of responsive records. PAC Op. 25-014.

An individual filed a FOIA request with a police department seeking copies of body camera footage relating to an incident he was involved in. The police department responded that it had responsive video that had to be redacted and that the requester would have to submit payment in advance in the amount of $2.58 per minute for redactions, totaling $696.60. The requester then filed a request for review with the PAC arguing that redaction charges are not authorized by FOIA. The police department argued that it charged a fee because it had to purchase redaction software, and that the "redaction charge" was intended to reimburse the department for those charges. The department further argued that it was not charging for its personnel time in redacting the video recording. 

The PAC rejected the department's arguments. First, the PAC noted that in section 1 of FOIA, the General Assembly acknowledged that FOIA imposes fiscal obligations on public bodies. Second, the PAC stated that had the General Assembly intended to allow public bodies to be reimbursed for redaction costs it would have included a provision in section 6 of FOIA. Finally, the PAC found that FOIA restricts fees for electronic records to the cost of purchasing the "recording medium" (i.e., CD, flash drive) and not other costs. In sum, the PAC determined that the police department could not impose a "redaction charge" on FOIA requesters as that violates FOIA. 

Monday, December 8, 2025

Quorum Forum Podcast - New Laws for the New Year


Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast released Episode 99: New Laws for the New Year, which is summarized below:

Farewell, 2025—and a warm welcome to the New Year! In this holiday episode, the Quorum Forum podcast hosts its annual tradition of revisiting new legislation and case law that local government listeners should know for 2026. Ancel Glink attorneys Erin Monforti, Katie Nagy and Alexis Carter captained teams of Ancel Glink attorneys in a competition to leave the most messages about new laws on the Quorum Forum hotline. Who will win? Our listeners, of course! The episode provides critical updates on laws taking effect (or possibly taking effect) in 2026, including Open Meetings Act amendments, Freedom of Information Act amendments, a law restricting local parking requirements near transit, and more! 

Stay tuned for future Municipal Minute posts about a number of these new state laws that will be reported on over the next few weeks.



Friday, December 5, 2025

Court Upholds City's Response to FOIA that No Records Exist


In 2023, a requester submitted several FOIA requests to a city police department seeking law enforcement records regarding himself. The city's response letter denying the request stated that (1) the records were exempt under 7(1)(a) and (2) "NO RECORDS FOUND." The requester then sued the city claiming it improperly withheld responsive records to his requests in violation of FOIA. The city filed a motion to dismiss which acknowledged that the city's response should have only noted that the city had no responsive records rather than citing a FOIA exemption. The circuit court granted the city's motion and dismissed the case finding that the city’s search did not identify any responsive records to the requests, and, therefore, the city cannot withhold records that do not exist. The requester appealed the circuit court’s decision, alleging that (1) the circuit court improperly dismissed his complaint, and (2) that the circuit court should have awarded attorney’s fees to the requester.

In Turner v. Vedra, the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the case. First, the Appellate Court determined that the non-existence of responsive records is an affirmative defense to a FOIA complaint. In this case, the Appellate Court determined that the city performed a reasonably diligent search that did not identify any records responsive to the requests, and the adequacy of the city’s search was supported by affidavits from the city’s FOIA officer and records department supervisor. Because the requester failed to allege any facts to indicate that records existed, or provide a counter-affidavit to rebut the city’s good faith affidavits, the Appellate Court determined that the circuit court properly dismissed the requester’s complaint.

Second, the Appellate Court rejected the requester’s claim for attorneys fees because (1) the requester was not a prevailing party in his FOIA litigation, and (2) the requester, as a pro se litigant, is not entitled to an award of attorneys fees under FOIA.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Thursday, December 4, 2025

Appellate Court Upholds $14,500 Fine for Building Code Violations


An Illinois Appellate Court upheld an administrative hearing officer's decision to issue a $14,500 fine for ongoing and unresolved building code violations in Thakkar v. City of Aurora

After a city inspector conducted an inspection of a home, the city's code hearing officer issued a citation relating to 26 code violations. The city scheduled a reinspection of the home, which found that 14 violations had been resolved but 12 violations remained. The hearing officer issued a fine of $500 per day until the 12 violations were cured. After further inspections, the hearing officer ultimately fined the homeowner $14,500. The homeowner filed a lawsuit appealing the hearing officer's decision. 

The trial court upheld the hearing officer's decision and the homeowner appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, which also affirmed the hearing officer's decision. The Court found that the homeowner conceded there were code violations, and that the evidence submitted into the record showed several violations had not yet been cured. The Appellate Court rejected the homeowner's arguments that the written and oral rulings were inconsistent, and that the case should be "DWP'd" because a written order had not hadn't been issued within three days of the hearing. In sum, the Court held that the hearing officer's decision finding violations and issuing a fine was not clearly erroneous.



Wednesday, December 3, 2025

In the Zone: Court Upholds Revocation of Conditional Use Permit for Beer Garden


The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court's denial of an injunction against a planning and development committee that had revoked a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor beer garden. Minocqua Brewing Company v. Daniel Hess.

In 2021, the owner of a microbrewery and pub applied for and was issued an administrative permit allowing the operation of a retail outlet accessory to the brewery. That permit expressly prohibited any outdoor operations. A year later, the owner applied for a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor beer garden which would require use of land owned by the town. The committee denied the conditional use permit, which the owner did not appeal. Later, the brewery submitted a revised application for the beer garden. In the meantime, the brewery was violating its retail outlet permit by operating outdoors, and the owner was criticizing town and county officials on social media and in public hearings. The committee ultimately decided to revoke the retail outlet permit because of the open and ongoing violations of the permit, but granted a conditional use permit for the outdoor beer garden conditioned on the owner meeting all of the conditions prior to the start of operation. 

The owner opened the beer garden but did not meet all of the conditions required for the permit. Ultimately, the committee suspended the outdoor beer garden permit for 90 days. The owner ignored the suspension and continued to operate the beer garden, and the committee then revoked the permit. The owner appealed the revocation to the board of adjustments which denied his appeal. The owner then filed a new conditional use application, while he continued to operate the beer garden without a permit. The owner also posted on social media that he would continue to operate without a permit regardless of the committee's decision on his new application. After a public hearing on the conditional use application, the committee denied the permit, citing the repeated violations and the brewery's continued operation without a valid permit.

The owner of the brewery sued, arguing that the committee retaliated against the owner and brewery for their political speech in violation of the First Amendment when it revoked the permit and denied a new permit. The court rejected their claims, finding that they failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of the First Amendment retaliation claims. The court noted that any reasonable permit-issuing body would have revoked and denied permits given the owner's past and present willful violations of the permit requirements, as well as his promise of future violations. The court held that there can be no First Amendment retaliation if the adverse action (revocation and denial) would have occurred even in the absence of the protected speech.  






Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Governor Signs Bill Amending OMA and FOIA


We reported on SB 243 a couple of weeks ago which proposed various amendments to the Open Meetings Act and FOIA and that had been approved by both the senate and house of the Illinois General Assembly. The bill was just signed by the Governor last week and became P.A. 104-0438. A brief summary of the changes that will take effect on January 1, 2026 is below:

1. Meetings of Public Bodies Prohibited on Election Day

2. Military Service Added as a Reason for Remote Meeting Attendance 

3. Township OMA Training Option Available

4. Immunity for Public Officers and Employees for Record Disclosure in Compliance with PAC Opinion

5. Section 4 FOIA Posting Requirements Allow Website Posting

6. Junk Mail Excluded from FOIA Definition of Public Records

7. Electronic FOIA Submissions Must be in Body of Submission (not Attachment or Hyperlink)

8. Public Body Can Require Verification that FOIA Requester is a Person

9. Self-Evaluation Exemption from OMA Expanded to Include Facilitator from Regional Association

10. New FOIA Exemptions Added for Certain Criminal Justice and Nuclear Records 


Monday, December 1, 2025

Illinois Supreme Court Grants Immunity to School District


In Haase v. Kankakee School District, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether a school district and its employees were entitled to immunity for a student injury under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (“Tort Immunity Act”).

A parent sued a school district on behalf of his son who was injured during gym class. According to the complaint, the gym teacher walked the students through warmup activities and provided basketball and soccer balls to the students. The gym teacher then went to sit in the corner of the gym and began using his laptop. The complaint alleges that the gym teacher was aware of a child in the class who had been disciplined in the past for fighting and getting aggressive with other students. The gym teacher, principal, and student counselor, however, did not have any recollection or records of this child being aggressive with other students.  

The students began playing a soccer game, and the injured student testified that the other child was not playing for either team but was attempting to grab the ball from the students who were playing soccer. The situation escalated, and the injured student claims the child tackled him resulting in injury. Other students from the class testified they thought the game had turned unnecessarily rough. The gym teacher testified he had seen the incident but thought it was a normal scrum for a soccer ball. 

The Tort Immunity Act provides immunity for public bodies and public employees in limited circumstances. Section 3-108 of the Act immunizes a local public entity for negligent supervision of, or negligent failure to supervise, an activity on public property. However, there is an exception to this immunity where an employee of the public body acts with utter indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others. 

The trial court held that the claims in the lawsuit were not sufficient to state a cause of action because the gym teacher’s conduct did not rise to the level of utter indifference or conscious disregard to defeat tort immunity. On appeal, a divided appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and found that there was a dispute of fact regarding whether the child was known to be aggressive and whether the gym teacher acted with conscious disregard for the student’s safety based on this knowledge. 

On appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, the Court held that because the complaint had not alleged conduct amounting to utter indifference or a conscious disregard for safety, the school district was immune from liability under Section 3-108 of the Tort Immunity Act. The Court concluded that the actions of the teacher did not rise to the level of willful and wanton conduct.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

Appeal of Pension Board Decision Dismissed for Violation of Court Rules in Use of AI


An Illinois Appellate Court recently dismissed the appeal by a former police officer of a pension board's denial of pension benefits because he violated Illinois Supreme Court Rules when he filed an appellate brief almost wholly created with the aid of artificial intelligence (AI). Pletcher v. Village of Libertyville Police Pension Board.

The plaintiff was hired as a police officer in 2003, and filed an application for a non-duty disability pension in 2020. He subsequently withdrew his application, and returned to full duty. In 2022, he was placed on a performance improvement plan for certain violations of department orders and policies. Shortly thereafter, he filed a second application for a non-duty disability pension. The pension board held a hearing on the application and ultimately denied his application, finding that the officer's condition could have been remedied with medication, which the pension board found the officer refused to regularly to take.

The officer filed a complaint for administrative review with the trial court to appeal the pension board's decision, along with a brief supporting his complaint. In his brief, he cited to several cases that did not exist. At the hearing, the officer also attempted to introduce new evidence and exhibits that were not part of the original hearing. The pension board brought the nonexistent cases to the attention of the trial court and objected to the introduction of new evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court upheld the pension board's denial of his pension application.

The officer then appealed to the Appellate Court. After he filed his brief with the Appellate Court, the pension board filed a response and a motion for sanctions alleging that the officer violated Illinois Supreme Court Rules for fictitious citations to the administrative record, citations to nonexistent cases, and fictitious holdings from actual cases. The Appellate Court noted that all parties in litigation (even pro se litigants) are obligated to comply with court rules and procedures. The Court also noted that the officer had cited five cases in his appellate brief that did not exist, and that the some of the actual cases cited in his brief did not stand for the propositions stated in his brief. The Court stated that the officer's status as a "pro se" party does not excuse his careless reliance on AI, and that he was aware of the risks of using AI-generated research when this same issue was raised at the trial court and yet he still chose to use AI in this manner in his appellate brief. After holding oral argument on the motion to dismiss the appeal, the Appellate Court granted the pension board's motion and the officer's appeal was dismissed.


Wednesday, November 19, 2025

Appellate Court Interprets 50 Pages "Free of Charge" FOIA Provision


An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a public body in a FOIA case filed by a requester who claimed the public body violated FOIA when it consolidated his six FOIA requests in applying FOIA's fee provision. Walters v. McHenry County Sheriff's Office.

A requester filed six FOIA requests on the same day with a county sheriff's office seeking Department of Corrections inspection reports for six different years (one year per request). The sheriff's office responded to the requests by providing 50 pages free of charge, and stating that the requester would have to pay 15 cents per page for the 113 remaining pages. The requester filed a lawsuit claiming that the sheriff's office violated FOIA by consolidating the six requests for purposes of applying the provision of FOIA requiring public bodies to release 50 pages free of charge, arguing that each of the six requests should have been treated separately. The sheriff's office filed a motion to dismiss the case arguing that because the requester submitted the six requests together in one envelope on the same date, it was appropriate to aggregate and combine the requests in applying FOIA's fee provision. The trial court agreed with the sheriff's office, finding that the request was properly consolidated for purposes of applying FOIA's fee provision. 

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of the sheriff's office but applied a different interpretation to the FOIA fee provision. The Appellate Court noted that the statute provides that “[n]o fees shall be charged for the first 50 pages of black and white, letter or legal sized copies requested by a requester.” The Appellate Court held that it was irrelevant whether the requester's FOIA requests were separate and distinct requests for different public records, and instead held that the requester's status as a single requester is what matters in applying this provision of FOIA, stating as follows:

Under the plain language of the statute, plaintiff—the “requester”—was entitled to “the first 50 pages *** requested” from defendant—the “public body”—free of charge. Id. Defendant provided 50 free pages to plaintiff and properly assessed fees for the additional 113 pages. Thus, plaintiff has not stated a valid claim against defendant for a FOIA violation, and the court was correct to dismiss his complaint. 

In short, the Appellate Court held that a requester is entitled to the first 50 pages free of charge requested by that requester from that public body, and since the sheriff's office provided the first 50 pages at no charge, there was no FOIA violation and the requester's complaint was properly dismissed.

It is important to note that this appears to be the first time an Appellate Court has interpreted this FOIA fee provision in this manner, and that this is an unreported order not a published opinion. So, it remains to be seen whether other Illinois courts would rule in the same manner (i.e., that the 50 pages "free of charge" provision applies to the requester and not to each request).