County Not Liable for Former Coroner's Actions in Keeping Skull

County Not Liable for Former Coroner's Actions in Keeping Skull

  Tuesday, June 16, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a county in a civil rights lawsuit involving the former county coroner's keeping of a family member's skull as a trophy. Betts v. Boone County.

In 1977, a high school student was kidnapped, raped, and murdered and then dumped in a field within the county. As part of the investigation, the county coroner examined the body, and returned the remains to the family, except for the skull, which the coroner kept. 

In 2022, the current county coroner contacted the family to inform them that the former coroner had kept at least three skulls, one of which was their family member's. After the family exhumed the casket to place the skull with her remains, they filed a civil rights lawsuit against the county, arguing that the coroner's actions unconstitutionally retained their property in violation of their due process rights. The district court dismissed the case, determining that the family did not show that the former coroner's actions established an official county policy, as required to hold the county liable for its employee's actions. 

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit analyzed the legal standard for holding a government liable for civil rights claims for its employees' actions, which requires a person to show that the deprivation of a constitutional right was caused by a municipal policy or custom. Here, the Seventh Circuit held that because state law requires coroners to return all remains to the next of kin, the former coroner did not implement an “official policy” of the county when he kept the skull. Instead, he violated the law. Since the family members could not establish that the county was liable for its former employee's actions, the district court properly dismissed their case. 

Read More

In the Zone: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Lawsuit Against County Regarding Denial of Solar Facilities

In the Zone: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Lawsuit Against County Regarding Denial of Solar Facilities

  Monday, June 15, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

In January 2023, the Illinois General Assembly enacted Public Act 102-1123 (the Act) which, among other things, amended the Counties Code to codify new standards and procedures for the development of “commercial solar energy facilities” in counties across Illinois. Notable provisions of the Act include the following: 

• A restriction that counties may not adopt zoning regulations that “disallow, permanently ortemporarily,” commercial solar energy facilities in agricultural or industrial districts,
• Guidelines regarding maximum setbacks, fencing requirements, height, vegetative screening, etc.,
• A provision allowing counties to adopt standards for solar facilities, so long as county requirements are not “more restrictive” than those specified in the Act,
• A requirement that counties hold public hearings prior to making decisions to approve or deny solar facilities, and
• A provision stating that requests for siting approval or special use permits “shall be approved” if a request complies with the Counties Code, the local county zoning ordinance, and relevant state and federal statutes and regulations.

In 2024, two solar development companies submitted separate applications to a county seeking to develop commercial solar energy facilities within the county. Over the following several months, the developers appeared before the county zoning board of appeals and the zoning committee, which held public hearings and recommended that the county board deny the proposed project under the county’s unified development ordinance (UDO). Both projects were ultimately denied by the county board, and each developer filed a lawsuit requesting (1) a writ of mandamus to compel the county to issue their requested permits, and (2) a declaration that their project applications should be approved. The developers claimed their applications complied with the Act and all provisions of the UDO, and therefore the county was obligated to approve their application and issue all necessary permits for their projects. The county moved to dismiss both cases, arguing that the Act did not give the developers an absolute right to the permits requested.

The trial court ruled in the county's favor, dismissing both cases. The court determined that mandamus was not available because the county could not be compelled to exercise its discretionary zoning authority to issue siting approval or special use permits for the facilities. Furthermore, the court found that the developer’s claim for declaratory judgment was insufficiently plead, and gave the developers an opportunity to replead their complaint. Instead, both developers appealed the trial court’s decision, and the cases were consolidated before the Fourth District Appellate Court. 

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the decision of the trial court, determining that mandamus was not available given the discretion vested in the county to make local zoning decisions (particularly decisions to grant or deny applications for special use permits). Tate Road Solar 1, LLC, et al. v. County of Winnebago. The Court found the Act did not prohibit the county from exercising discretion in determining whether to issue permits. Instead, by allowing counties to regulate commercial solar energy facilities as “special uses,” the Illinois General Assembly plainly intended that counties maintain some discretion over approval and siting for these land uses. The Court also determined that counties were permitted to apply their traditional, subjective standards used when making local zoning decisions. Additionally, because the Act requires a public hearing before a permit can be issued, the Court found that the county would need to exercise discretion in accepting testimony and evidence, and then weighing various standards to determine whether a permit should be issued. While the Act codified certain limitations on local authority to regulate solar facilities, the Court determined the General Assembly did not eliminate counties’ traditional discretion to make local zoning decisions. Therefore, mandamus was not an appropriate remedy to force the county to approve the developer’s applications and issue permits for the facilities.

As to the developers’ claims for declaratory judgment, the Court found that because the developers did not have a “clear right” to the permits, there was no actual controversy the developers could plead to seek a declaration that their permits be issued. In sum, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision dismissing the developers’ lawsuits for failing to state a proper claim for mandamus or declaratory relief.

Post Authored by Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink 

Read More

Case Was Properly Dismissed Where Appeal Not Served on City

Case Was Properly Dismissed Where Appeal Not Served on City

  Thursday, June 11, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

In Crane v. City of Rockford, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of an appeal of an administrative hearing officer's issuance of fines for building code violations where the property owner did not comply with the service requirements of state law.

A municipal administrative hearing officer found a property owner in violation of various building code provisions and assessed a fine of $64,000. The property owner filed an appeal with the circuit court within the statutory 35 day period but failed to properly serve the City and other defendants as required by section 3-103 of the Administrative Review Law. The City filed a motion to dismiss the case based on noncompliance with the service requirements of state law, and the circuit court and Appellate Courts ruled in favor of the City, finding that section 3-103 was mandatory, and both the filing of the appeal and "issuance of summons" on the defendants has to be accomplished within 35 days of the date the administrative decision is served. Here, although the owner had filed an affidavit with the filed complaint identifying the hearing officer and mayor as defendants to be served, he failed to pay the fee for certified mailing of the summonses, so they were not issued. As a result, his appeal of the $64,000 fine was properly dismissed.

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 106: Legislative Update

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 106: Legislative Update

  Tuesday, June 09, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink has released Quorum Forum Podcast Episode 106: Legislative Update. The Illinois General Assembly recently concluded its spring legislative session and Ancel Glink’s Greg Jones and Tyler Smith join us to talk about recent legislation local governments should know, including updates on housing grants, e-bike and e-scooter regulations, hemp regulations, and more! 

In This Episode:

• [00:00] Baseball Fever: Greg and Tyler discuss their favorite all-time and underrated players, including Lou Whitaker, Barry Bonds, and Anthony Rizzo.
• [03:45] The "Build Plan" vs. The "REAL Act": We review Governor Pritzker’s Build Plan omnibus package, which sought to preempt local zoning for housing but ultimately failed to advance. We also discuss the IML’s alternative REAL Act.
• [09:00] Housing Grants: Even though the Build Plan didn't pass, the FY27 budget allocated hundreds of millions for housing, including funds for the Missing Middle program, SmartBuy, and Opening Doors.
• [10:45] E-Bikes & E-Scooters: New statewide standards for electric micromobility devices effectively preempt home rule authority for regulating these devices, starting January 1, 2027 .(SB3484)
• [14:45] The Illinois Hemp Act & Cannabis: Illinois repeals the Industrial Hemp Act to align with federal standards, effective November 12, 2026. This bill also doubles the legal possession limit for cannabis to 60 grams and extends dispensary hours to 2 a.m., subject to local zoning. (SB3222)
• [17:45] Operational Updates: Briefing on HB4541 regarding overpayments under the Unclaimed Property Act and HB1353 protecting volunteer emergency workers during training.
• [19:30] Financial Posting & Trusts: Coverage of HB2137 regarding website financial posting requirements, SB638 on OPEB trust funds, and SB2102 on electronic filing receipts.
• [22:45] Special Districts: New rules for dissolving drainage and sanitation districts in certain counties (HB5166) and disconnecting park district territory (HB5542).
• [26:15] Local Finance & IMRF: Discussing SB2769 (Business District fund transfers), SB2826 (IMRF separation benefits), and SB2836 (increased audit thresholds for FY27).
• [29:30] Fire Protection & School Transfers: Updates on HB4292 (ambulance fund transfers), HB4909 (Taft-Hartley/IMRF contributions), and HB4375 (extending school fund transfer periods).
• [33:00] School Code Changes: An update covering psychologist qualifications (HB4397, effective July 1, 2027), CPR/AED training (HB4788), staff mental health procedures (HB4862, starting 2028), and service animal handling (SB2761).
• [37:30] Rights & Protections: Details on SB2914 (expanded teacher dismissal warnings) and SB3361 (The Jett Hawkins Law regarding religious hairstyles), both effective immediately upon signing.
• [39:45] Open Meetings Act: Can you list "Personnel Issues" on a meeting agenda? We review a new binding opinion regarding employee termination and the Open Meetings Act.
• [44:15] Upcoming Events: A summary of where to catch Ancel Glink attorneys this summer and fall.

Read More

Seventh Circuit Upholds Removal of Public Employee for Social Media Posts

Seventh Circuit Upholds Removal of Public Employee for Social Media Posts

  Monday, June 08, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the removal of a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary after he refused to stop posting himself in uniform and making derogatory statements on social media in Wenzler v. United States Coast Guard, et al.

Wenzler had been a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary for about 15 years when a member of the public complained about his LinkedIn posts. One of the posts accused certain Supreme Court Justices of being racist, and another made a crude remark about the Girl Scouts. The Auxiliary conducted an investigation, and a supervisor directed him to remove from social media any photograph of himself wearing his uniform and to delete any reference to the Auxiliary. He responded that he would not comply with the directive and that he would file a complaint against the supervisor for racist action against him because he was white. He continued to post about his Auxiliary position on LinkedIn and another complaint was filed by a member of the public about one of his posts. He again stated he would not comply with the Auxiliary's social media directive, and formal disciplinary proceedings were started which resulted in the Coast Guard disenrolling him. After his administrative appeals failed, he sued in federal court claiming the Coast Guard's actions against him violated his First Amendment rights. The district court ruled in the Coast Guard's favor, and he appealed.

The Seventh Circuit reviewed the standards for a First Amendment retaliation claim, which require a public employee to show that (1) their speech was constitutionally protected; (2) they suffered a deprivation likely to deter free speech; and (3) their speech was at least a motivating factor in the employer's actions. In analyzing the first prong (whether his speech was constitutionally protected), the Court applied the two-step Pickering test: (a) whether the speech involved a matter of public concern and (b) if so, does the speaker's interest in commenting on the matter of public concern outweigh the government's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.

In this case, the Court accepted that Wenzler's speech touched on matters of public concern (meeting the first step of the Pickering test). However, in applying the second step (balancing interests test), the Court determined that the Coast Guard deserved deference in assessing and responding to its members' speech when those members hold themselves out as members of the organization while wearing its uniform. The Auxiliary's structure as a uniformed organization within the Coast Guard with a military-like hierarchy was also relevant to the Court in balacing its interests against Wenzler's. In short, the Court held that the Auxiliary could reasonably determine that Wenzler's speech would be detrimental to the Auxiliary and its reputation, and reasonably expect that other members of the Auxiliary would be less likely to work with him because of his derogatory comments and attacks on others. As a result, the Seventh Circuit found no First Amendment violation in the Coast Guard's removal of Wenzler. 

Read More

Illinois General Assembly Passes Illinois Hemp Act

Illinois General Assembly Passes Illinois Hemp Act

  Wednesday, June 03, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

On the final day of its 2026 spring legislative session, the Illinois General Assembly passed Senate Bill 3222, creating the Illinois Hemp Act governing hemp-derived products in Illinois. If signed by the Governor, the Act would repeal the existing Industrial Hemp Act, effective November 12, 2026.

The federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) created an exception to the federal definition of “marijuana” for products meeting the legal definition of “hemp.” This created a loophole under which hemp was no longer a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, allowing for the proliferation of synthetic cannabis products, such as Delta-9 THC products. Recent federal changes (Pub. L. No. 119-37) to the definition of “hemp” effectively close this loophole while continuing to allow “industrial hemp” grown for non-cannabis purposes. The federal changes are scheduled to become effective November 12, 2026.

Senate Bill 3222 aligns Illinois law with the recent federal changes by adopting the federal definition of “hemp,” among other terms. The effective date of the Industrial Hemp Act repeal coincides with the effective date of the federal changes. Beyond incorporating federal definitions, SB3222 brings hemp-derived products that contain qualifying concentrations of THC-related compounds within the State’s cannabis licensing, testing, distribution, and retail framework. As a result, the sale, distribution, manufacturing, and production of covered hemp products without state authorization or licensing will be prohibited in Illinois.

Aside from hemp-related updates, the bill introduces several changes to broader cannabis laws. It doubles the threshold for a minor cannabis offense from 30 grams to 60 grams of any substance containing cannabis and raises the legal possession limits for Illinois residents age 21 or older to 60 grams of cannabis flower, 1,000 milligrams of THC in cannabis-infused products, 10 grams of cannabis concentrate. Additionally, the Act provides that a cannabis dispensary may now operate until 2 a.m. (rather than 10p.m.), subject to local zoning rules.

The bill now heads to the Governor for final consideration.

Post Authored by Adam Simon & Luigi Laudando

Read More

Seventh Circuit Sanctions Attorney for Filing Brief with AI Hallucinations

Seventh Circuit Sanctions Attorney for Filing Brief with AI Hallucinations

  Tuesday, June 02, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned a lawyer for AI-generated hallucinations and other inaccuracies and errors in a brief filed with the Court in an immigration appeal. Perez-Castillo v. Todd Blanche.

An attorney filed an opening appellate brief with the Seventh Circuit on behalf of his client, who was appealing an immigration removal order. The Court denied the appeal on its merits in the opinion, and also addressed certain problems and irregularities the Court discovered in the appellate brief. The Court noted that about half of the cases cited in the court filing either did not exist or were falsely labeled as Seventh Circuit cases. The Court also noted that nearly every quotation in the filing could not be traced to a real case, a known hallmark of AI hallucinations. The Court also discovered false representations of the record in the filing, including statements about testimony and findings of the Immigration Judge. On order of the Court, the attorney responded that generative AI was used for the brief but he attributed that to another attorney (who had not filed an appearance in the case). The attorney admitted that he did not review the brief before filing it with the Court

The Court sanctioned the attorney who signed and filed the brief. The sanction (in the amount of $5,000) was based on a violation of the attorney rules of professional conduct rule 46, which authorizes a court to "suspend, disbar, or discipline a member of our bar ‘for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.’” While the Court did not sanction the attorney who wrote the brief, it did admonish her that she must be cautious in ensuring any use of generative AI is in compliance with the attorney rules of professional conduct. The Court also referred the matter to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC).

The Court ended its opinion with the following cautionary note to litigants and attorneys:

There is “little doubt that litigants and courts” will develop “sound and workable practices” governing AI usage in due time, but that point has not yet arrived. [citation omitted]. Briefs like those petitioner’s counsel submitted in this case are unacceptable and “result in confusion and time wasted” for this court. [citation omitted]. Members of this court’s bar must be exceedingly careful about outsourcing their work product. At all times, attorneys must follow both the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and this court’s Rules of Professional Conduct. If not, sanctions may follow.

Read More

School District Administrator Had Qualified Immunity in First Amendment Challenge

School District Administrator Had Qualified Immunity in First Amendment Challenge

  Monday, June 01, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a school district chief talent officer had qualified immunity in a First Amendment case brought by a school district employee who had been terminated for her social media posts in Hayes v. Board of Education.

A college administrator responsible for staffing student teachers in a school district was terminated by the school district for making disparaging comments on social media about the district. The comments included criticisms of the school district and its CEO, including circulating a petition calling for the district to investigate and report on racial inequities in the district. After her termination, she filed a lawsuit against the district's chief talent officer and against the board of education, claiming she was unlawfully retaliated against in violation of her First Amendment rights. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity among other defenses, but the district court denied the motion. The defendants appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit determined that the chief talent officer was entitled to qualified immunity against the First Amendment retaliation claim brought by the former employee. Specifically, the Court held that there was no prior caselaw that would put the chief talent officer on notice that his conduct in this case would violate the former employee's constitutional rights, one of the steps in a qualified immunity analysis. As a result, the former employee could not meet her burden to overcome the chief talent officer's qualified immunity defense.

Although the Seventh Circuit found that the chief talent officer had qualified immunity in the case, it allowed the former employee's First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed against the district.

Read More

Illinois General Assembly Spring 2026 End of Session Tracking

Illinois General Assembly Spring 2026 End of Session Tracking

  Friday, May 29, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

As the Illinois General Assembly draws closer to concluding its 2026 spring legislative session, there are a number of outstanding bills likely to be considered that would have a significant impact on local governments throughout Illinois. The General Assembly has been busy so far in the 2026 spring session passing a number of bills that will affect local government operations as well as a bill on regulating electric mobility devices. With three days left until the General Assembly recesses on May 31^st, the Governor’s BUILD Plan legislation, and other bills impacting local governments, may still be considered.

Below is a list of bills we’re tracking with updates on the bill’s status through May 28^th. 

Housing Legislation 

House Bill 5626: BUILD Plan Housing Omnibus Bill (First Reading; referred to House Rules Committee) 

Senate Bill 4060: Middle Housing & Statewide Standards (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4061: Single-Stair Reform (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4062: Statewide Impact Fee Calculation (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee)

 Senate Bill 4063: Third-Party Plan Review (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4064: Parking Reform (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4071: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 0331: Restock the Block Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 introduced on May 21^st and recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

Senate Bill 0608: Federally Assisted Tenant Protection Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

Senate Bill 635: Faith-Based Housing and Mixed-Use By-Right Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No.1 recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

House Bill 5765 / Senate Bill 4200: REAL Housing Act (Frist Reading; referred to House Rules Committee and Senate Assignments Committee) 

Other Legislation Affecting Local Governments 

House Bill 1429: Amendments to IL Homeless Bill of Rights (Second Reading; House Floor Amendment No. 1; House Floor Amendment No. 2 recommended for adoption by House Housing Committee; House Floor Amendment No. 3 recommended for approval by House Housing Committee; Bill and all House floor amendments re-referred to House Rules Committee)

House Bill 5513 / Senate Bill 4016: Power Act (First Reading; Bill re-referred to House Rules Committee and Senate Assignments Committee) 

House Bill 5326: Digital Library Protection Act (Passed House; House Floor Amendment No.1 and House Floor Amendment No. 2 adopted; First Reading in Senate; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

House Bill 4712: Amendments to Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (First Reading; Bill re-referred to House Rules Committee) 

Senate Bill 1796: Body Worn Camera FOIA Requests (Senate Committee Amendment No. 2 adopted; Passed Senate; Second Reading in House) 

Senate Bill 2715: OMA and FOIA Amendments: (Passed Senate; Second Reading in House; House Committee Amendment No. 1 adopted by House Executive Committee; House Floor Amendments No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7 recommended for adoption by House Executive Committee) 

House Bill 5784 / Senate Bill 20: Joint Omnibus CBD and Cannabis Regulatory Reform (First Reading in House and referred to House Rules Committee; First Reading in Senate; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Legislation Passed By Both Chambers 

Senate Bill 3336: Electric Mobility Devices (Passed both houses as of May 27, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2836: Government Account Audits (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2826: IMRF Pension Benefits (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2769: Transfer of Funds Among Municipal Business District Tax Allocation Funds (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2102: Taxing District Budget and Appropriations Ordinance Filing (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 638: Municipal Postemployment Benefit Trusts (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2761: Service Animals and In-Service ADA Trainings (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2913: Teacher Evaluation Plans (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2914: Procedure for Removing/Dismissing Teachers (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 3361: Religious Hairstyles in Schools (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4375: School District Interfund Transfers (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5542: Park District Disconnection Petitions (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5166: Dissolution of Special Districts (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5167: Township Weed Cutting (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4788: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training Curriculum (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature from Governor) 

House Bill 4862: School Staff Mental Health Policies (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature from Governor) 

House Bill 4491: Amendment to Public Employee Disability Act (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 2137: Amendment to Governmental Account Audit Act (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4397: School Psychologist Qualifications (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 3743: School District Handbook Railroad Safety Messaging (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4137: Amendment to Education for Homeless Children Act (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4361: Building Inspector Certifications (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 1353: Amendment to Volunteer Emergency Worker Job Protection Act (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4541: Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (Passed both houses as of May 14, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Post Authored by Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink

Read More

Police Search of Backpack During Arrest Was Lawful

Police Search of Backpack During Arrest Was Lawful

  Thursday, May 28, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Federal appeals court rules against arrestee in challenge to police officer's seizure of backpack during arrest in U.S. v. Fillyaw. 

Local police officers executed a search warrant and arrested an individual in connection with an arson investigation. During the arrest (which took place in an apartment parking lot), police seized the arrestee's backpack and searched the contents, finding a loaded handgun and drugs. The arrestee filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the backpack, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the police, holding that police have the right to take custody of an arrestee's property and take inventory of that property when the arrest takes place in a public place.

Read More

Seventh Circuit Rejects Discrimination Claim by Candidate for Deputy Sheriff Position

Seventh Circuit Rejects Discrimination Claim by Candidate for Deputy Sheriff Position

  Wednesday, May 27, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a county sheriff office's decision not to hire a candidate for a deputy sheriff position, rejecting the candidate's racial discrimination claim in Burton v. Will County Sheriff's Merit Commission.

A candidate applied for a deputy sheriff position with a county sheriff's department. As part of the background check process, the county contacted the candidate's current employer, who stated that he was not a dependable employee, did not work well with others, and that the employer would not rehire him. Based on that information, the county sheriff's commission removed the candidate from the hiring certification process. He sued, claiming that the county discriminated against him because of his race.

The district court ruled in favor of the county, finding no evidence that the decision to remove the candidate from the hiring certification process was related to his race. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court, finding no evidence that race played a role in the sheriff's merit commission's decision, rejecting the candidate's argument that the negative background check was a pretext to remove him from consideration. Instead, the Court found that the county had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to remove him - the negative employment reference from his current employer.

Read More

Court Upholds Pension Board Decision to Award Non-Duty Disability Pension

Court Upholds Pension Board Decision to Award Non-Duty Disability Pension

  Tuesday, May 26, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld a pension board's award of a non-duty disability rather than a line-of-duty disability in Hull v. Village of Wheeling Police Pension Fund. 

A probationary police officer applied for a line-of-duty disability, claiming that a motor vehicle accident while on duty caused disabilities preventing him from returning to work. The pension board conducted a hearing, at which the officer presented evidence in favor of a line-of-duty pension and the village (as intervenor) presented evidence opposing the application, arguing that he was able to work and had, in fact, been employed in various jobs since the accident. The opinions of multiple medical professionals was also presented at the hearing, including evidence that the officer did suffer from depression that prevented him from continuing to work in his police officer position. At the conclusion of the hearing, the pension board voted to grant a non-duty disability pension to the former officer (who had since been terminated by the village), finding that he was disabled but not due to the motor vehicle accident.

The former officer appealed, and both the trial court and the Appellate Court upheld the pension board's decision that he was entitled to a non-duty disability pension, but not a line-of-duty pension. Both courts determined that the pension board relied on the opinions of multiple medical professionals that while his condition was disabling, it was not caused by the motor vehicle accident. 

Read More