Seventh Circuit Finds No Fourth Amendment Violation in Police Pursuit Case

Seventh Circuit Finds No Fourth Amendment Violation in Police Pursuit Case

  Friday, December 26, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

City police officers responded to a report of gunshots in Chicago’s Austin neighborhood. While investigating the report, the officers approached Juan Mendez on the front porch of his home. Mendez initially did not respond to the officers questions and suddenly fled. A brief foot chase ensued during which Mendez jumped a fence and ran down an alley. According to body-worn camera footage of the incident, Mendez held an unidentified object in his right hand as he was running from the officers. The officers shouted warnings at Mendez and then fired three shots. Mendez fell to the ground and a gun landed nearby.

Mendez sued the City of Chicago and the responding officers alleging excessive use of force, battery, and an indemnification claim against the City for the actions of the officers. The district court reviewed the body-camera footage of the event and concluded that a reasonable officer would have had probable cause to belief that Mendez threatened the safety of the officers.

Mendez appealed, and the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court's ruling in favor of the City in Mendez v. City of Chicago. First, the Court considered whether the officers had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a threat of serious harm to the officers or the public. If the officers had probable cause, it would be constitutionally reasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Like the district court, the Seventh Circuit reviewed the video footage and determined that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officers had probable cause to believe that Mendez posed a threat to the safety of others.

The Court also resolved Mendez’s claims for battery and indemnification. The Court held that because the officers had a reasonable belief as to the threat of danger posed by Mendez, their conduct did not rise to the level of willful and wanton, and, as a result, the officers were granted immunity under the Tort Immunity Act. Because the individual officers were not liable, Mendez’s claim that the City had a duty to indemnify the actions of the officers also failed.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

Read More

The New Year Countdown – Amendments to the Illinois Vehicle Code

The New Year Countdown – Amendments to the Illinois Vehicle Code

  Tuesday, December 23, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2026.

Public Act 104-0141 amends the Illinois Vehicle Code to update the definition of the word “bicycle” following the recent e-bike trend. Previously, a “bicycle,” for purposes of the Illinois Vehicle Code, was defined as: “Every device propelled by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels except scooters and similar devices.”

Under this Act, the definition has been replaced with: “Every human-powered device and every low-speed electric bicycle, as defined in Section 1-40.10, with two or more pedals, and designated seats for the transportation of one or more persons.”

This revision incorporates bicycles with more than two wheels (a ‘trike’) and low-speed e-bikes. Riders of these types of bicycles will now be required to follow the same rules of the road for regular bicycles. 

Post authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

Read More

The New Year Countdown – Addition to Capital Development Board Act

The New Year Countdown – Addition to Capital Development Board Act

  Monday, December 22, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2026.

Public Act 104-0313 makes an addition to the Capital Development Board Act. This new section provides that units of local government cannot enforce ordinance or permitting requirements against the construction, reconstruction, improvement, or installation of a State facility. There are two exceptions, municipalities may enforce: 1) ordinances or permitting requirements of sanitary and municipally owned wastewater systems, and 2) rules or regulations related to environmental protection.

Read More

The New Year Countdown – Township Open Spaces

The New Year Countdown – Township Open Spaces

  Friday, December 19, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2026.

Public Act 104-0048 amends the Township Code to provide more flexibility in township-owned open spaces. Township open land refers to the land and water held by townships for preservation, recreation, and natural conservation purposes. The definition of “open land” was revised to include any area of land or water with an area of twelve acres or more (previously 50 acres or more). Expansion of the definition of “open land” to include smaller parcels will allow townships to preserve and maintain publicly held land for the benefit of future generations and otherwise promote the conservation of the environment.

This amendment also provides that a Township Board may not sell, convey, donate, or otherwise dispose of any part of open space without first passing a referendum approved by a majority of the voters of the township at a regular election.

Post authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

Read More

The New Year Countdown – Local Government Lift-Assist Services

The New Year Countdown – Local Government Lift-Assist Services

  Thursday, December 18, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2026.

Public Act 104-0057 amends the Municipal Code and the Fire Protection District to allow municipalities and fire protection districts to collect reasonable fees from assisted living facilities and nursing homes to cover lift assistance services provided to residents of these facilities. Lift-assist service fees can be imposed for every service after the sixth service provided to that specific facility in one year.

A lift assist service is a response by first responders in order to lift a patient from their current position to a desired position. While these lifts do not occur in response to a request for an ambulance ride to the hospital or emergency room, they can still utilize limited resources of municipalities and fire protection districts. This legislation will allow fire protection districts and municipalities to recover some of these costs and alleviate some strains on limited financial resources of government bodies.

Post authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

Read More

The New Year Countdown – Amendments Relating to Public Safety

The New Year Countdown – Amendments Relating to Public Safety

  Wednesday, December 17, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2026. Three "public safety" related Acts are summarized below:

Public Act 104-0158 amends the Illinois Police Training Act to require applicants for law enforcement positions at law enforcement agencies to direct all previous employers to produce employment records including performance history, investigations, examinations, and civil and criminal background investigation materials. Previous employers receiving a request for an applicant’s records must furnish a complete file of these records and, with limited exceptions for financial and personal identifying information, cannot make redactions.

Any previous employer that receives a request for these records must produce the records within 14 days of the request. If additional time is required, a 14-day extension may be requested. The Act provides a sample form for the consent and release for background investigation.

Public Act 104-0097 amends the Illinois Municipal Code and Counties Code to authorize municipalities and counties to use utility poles or public rights-of-way for public safety purposes, including, but not limited to, the placement of public safety equipment. This equipment cannot be located on or interfere with electric distribution systems, worker safety zones, or electric supply zones. All use of public safety equipment in these areas must comply with applicable codes or regulations that concern public safety.

Under this Act, a state agency or unit of local government may, by rule, ordinance, or resolution, create a permitting process to allow a utility pole or right-of-way to be used. However, any fee charged by the owner of the pole or right-of-way must be at the lowest rate charged and cannot exceed the owner’s costs. 

Public Act 104-0364 amends the Interstate Mutual Emergency Aid Act. The Interstate Mutual Emergency Aid Act helps to extend a jurisdiction’s emergency response capabilities by allowing local government bodies to enter into a mutual aid agreement with units of government from another state. In this new amendment, any public safety agency, including fire departments, municipal police departments, and emergency medical response services, or public contractors of any such agency, may provide assistance to any other public safety agency in the state or in a bordering state at the time of a natural disaster.

Post authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

Read More

The New Year Countdown – Illinois Student and Equity Act Expansion

The New Year Countdown – Illinois Student and Equity Act Expansion

  Tuesday, December 16, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2026.

The Retention of Illinois Students and Equity Act provides that students who are Illinois residents and are not eligible for federal financial assistance (such as certain undocumented students and transgender students) are eligible to apply for all forms of state financial aid. Public Act 104-0164 was passed to expand student eligibility to include assistance, aid, or benefits offered by units of local government. These students are now eligible to apply for assistance programs provided by local governments.

Post authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

Read More

The New Year Countdown – Libraries Required to Stock Opioid Antagonists

The New Year Countdown – Libraries Required to Stock Opioid Antagonists

  Monday, December 15, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2026.

Back in June, we reported on House Bill 1910, which amends the Local Library Act to require “libraries open to the public” to maintain a supply of approved “opioid antagonists,” such as Naloxone (Narcan), for use in assisting individuals experiencing an opioid overdose. On August 1, 2025, the Governor signed this bill into law as P.A. 104-0056, which will become effective on January 1, 2026.

Under this law, libraries created under the Local Library Act must take all reasonable steps to ensure that, during operating hours, there is at least one person present who has received training in how to recognize and respond to an opioid overdose. Library personnel may administer an opioid antagonist to any person who they believe is experiencing an overdose on library property or at a library-sponsored event. Libraries and library personnel are immune from claims related to the administration of an opioid antagonist, except in situations where they engage in willful or wanton misconduct.

Libraries interested in learning more about Public Act 104-0056 can visit the website of the Reaching Across Illinois Library System, which has a memo regarding the Act and its implications, authored by our very own Julie Tappendorf and Erin Monforti.

Post authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

Read More

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Validity of Constitutional Amendment Election

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Validity of Constitutional Amendment Election

  Friday, December 12, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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

Read More

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Library Book Removal Case

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Library Book Removal Case

  Thursday, December 11, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

Court Dismisses Discrimination Charge relating to Code Enforcement Action

Court Dismisses Discrimination Charge relating to Code Enforcement Action

  Wednesday, December 10, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

PAC Finds that Imposing a "Redaction Charge" Violates FOIA

PAC Finds that Imposing a "Redaction Charge" Violates FOIA

  Tuesday, December 09, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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. 

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast - New Laws for the New Year

Quorum Forum Podcast - New Laws for the New Year

  Monday, December 08, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

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

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

  Friday, December 05, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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

Read More

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

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

  Thursday, December 04, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

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

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

  Wednesday, December 03, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.  

Read More

Governor Signs Bill Amending OMA and FOIA

Governor Signs Bill Amending OMA and FOIA

  Tuesday, December 02, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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 

Read More

Illinois Supreme Court Grants Immunity to School District

Illinois Supreme Court Grants Immunity to School District

  Monday, December 01, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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

Read More

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

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

  Tuesday, November 25, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

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

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

  Wednesday, November 19, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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). 

Read More

Officer Precluded from Membership in Second Police Pension Fund

Officer Precluded from Membership in Second Police Pension Fund

  Tuesday, November 18, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld a pension board's decision to deny an application for pension membership in Kooistra v. Board of Trustees of Sycamore Police Pension Fund.

A deputy chief in a municipal police department retired from that department and began receiving a retirement pension. Subsequently, he was hired as a patrol officer in a second municipal police department and submitted an application for membership in the second municipality's pension fund. His application was denied by the police pension board based on section 3-124.1(b) of the Police Pension Code, which states as follows: 

(b) If a police officer who first becomes a member on or after January 1, 2019 is receiving pension payments (other than as provided in Section 3-109.3) and re-enters active service with any municipality that has established a pension fund under this Article, that police officer may continue to receive pension payments while he or she is in active service, but shall only participate in a defined contribution plan established by the municipality pursuant to Section 3-109.4 and may not establish creditable service in the pension fund established by that municipality or have his or her pension recomputed.” 40 ILCS 5/3-124.1(b)

The pension board determined that this statute precluded the officer from membership in the second municipality's pension fund because he was already receiving pension payments from the first municipality's pension fund; however, he could participate in a defined contribution plan. The officer appealed the pension board's decision to the circuit court which upheld the pension board's decision, and that ruling was then appealed to the Appellate Court.

On appeal, the Appellate Court analyzed the language in Section 3-124.1(b) and determined that it applied to the officer who was drawing a pension from his former employer. The Court rejected the officer's argument that the statutory provision did not apply to him because he became a "member" of the first municipality's pension fund before January 1, 2019. Instead, the Court agreed with the pension board's interpretation of the statute that it applies to the officer because he became a member of the second municipality's police department after the statutory cutoff date. In the Court's view, that was the most logical interpretation because the officer "first" becomes a member of the second municipality's police department upon reentry into active service, which would allow him to continue to receive pension payments from the first municipality but preclude him from participating in the second municipality's pension fund. The Court noted that this interpretation was consistent with the legislative intent of this section which was to prevent "double dipping" in two pension funds. 

Read More

City Violated FOIA When it Charged a Fee for an Electronic Copy of an Incident Report

City Violated FOIA When it Charged a Fee for an Electronic Copy of an Incident Report

  Monday, November 17, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In response to a FOIA request seeking an electronic copy of an incident report, a city denied the request and directed the requester to contact the city police records department to purchase the report at a cost of $5 for residents, or for $10 for non-residents. After the requester submitted a request for review, the PAC issued its 13th binding opinion of 2025, finding the City in violation of Section 6(a) of FOIA by improperly assessing a fee for disclosing an electronic copy of the incident report. PAC Op. 25-013.

The PAC relied upon the language of Section 6(a) of FOIA, which states that:

Except to the extent that the General Assembly expressly provides, statutory fees applicable to copies of public records when furnished in a paper format shall not be applicable to those records when furnished in an electronic format.” (Emphasis added.)

Although the city argued that the report fees were listed on its website, the PAC determiend that the city did not cite a FOIA provision or any other law that authorized the city to charge a special fee for disclosing electronic copies of incident reports. Even if the city had adopted an ordinance establishing those fees, the PAC determined that a municipal ordinance is not a statute. Here, because the Illinois legislature had not expressly authorized a statutory fee in excess of the cost of the recording medium for electronic copies of incident reports, and it was feasible for the city to disclose the report in the electronic format sought by the requester without the need to purchase a recording medium, the city was prohibited by FOIA from assessing the requester a fee for disclosing an electronic copy of the incident report.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Read More

Appellate Court Vacates Zoning Violations Against Tree Service Business

Appellate Court Vacates Zoning Violations Against Tree Service Business

  Friday, November 14, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

A tree service business owned property in a village's general business district. The village informed the business owner that its use of the property was not permitted by the village's zoning ordinance and conducted an administrative hearing on the alleged violation. At the administrative hearing, the business owner argued it was not operating a landscape contractor business as the village claimed, and that its operations were compliant with the village's zoning ordinance. At the conclusion of the hearing, tje administrative hearing officer found the business owner to be in violation of the zoning ordinance because (1) it was storing commercial vehicles and equipment on the property outside of an enclosed building, (2) the business operated a landscaping company which was not permitted in the general business district; and (3) commercial vehicles were parked on the property on an overnight basis in violation of the ordinance. The hearing officer issued a $150,000 fine against the business. 

The business filed a complaint seeking administrative review of the village's decision that it was in violation of the zoning ordinance. The circuit court upheld the hearing officer's decision, and that decision was appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the village's hearing officer's decision against the business, finding that (1) the business was operating a "contractor's shop" which was a permitted use in the business disrict; and (2) the parking of the businesses' commercial vehicles was allowed by the zoning ordinance, which allowed parking of commercial vehicles accessory to a business use. Because the Appellate Court found that the business was not in violation of the village's ordinances, it vacated the $150,000 fine. Tomax Tree Service, LLC v. Village of Westmont

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 98: E-Bikes and E-Scooters at the APA-IL State Conference

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 98: E-Bikes and E-Scooters at the APA-IL State Conference

  Monday, November 10, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum recently released 98: E-Bikes and E-Scooters at the APA-IL State Conference

In this episode, Ancel Glink attorneys Tyler Smith and Eugene Bolotnikov discuss options for local governments to navigate the current regulatory landscape of e-bikes and e-scooters. The discussion aims to help communities address concerns regarding public safety while providing some clarity to the owners and operators of these vehicles. Tyler and Eugene recently presented on this topic at the 2025 APA-IL State Conference, delving into the regulatory options available to communities in Illinois.

Special Segment: Public Comment Live from the APA-IL Conference

• The episode includes a public comment segment featuring a live question and answer session focused on e-bike and e-scooter regulations, recorded live at the 2025 APA-IL State Conference.
• Participants ask questions about communities shifting regulation away from state-defined classes (such as regulating by wattage instead), the inconsistency of regulations between neighboring communities, and the overlapping jurisdiction of municipalities and park districts.
• The presenters note that there has been a significant rise in regulatory attention in Illinois, especially in Cook County suburbs, following high-profile, fatal collisions involving e-bikes and vehicles.

Read More

In the Zone: General Assembly Sends "People Over Parking Act" to the Governor

In the Zone: General Assembly Sends "People Over Parking Act" to the Governor

  Wednesday, November 05, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

During the recent veto session, the Illinois General Assembly passed a large mass transit bill (Senate Bill 2111) which, among other things, would create the "People Over Parking Act." If signed by the Governor, the Act would take effect on June 1, 2026, and restrict local authority to require minimum off-street automobile parking near public transit.

Prohibition on Minimum Off-Street Parking Near Transit

The fundamental effect of the Act is to prohibit local governments from setting requirements for mandatory off-street parking for automobiles in specific areas. With limited exceptions, a unit of local government may not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirements on a development project that is located within:

• one-half mile of a public transportation hub; or
• one-eighth mile of a public transportation corridor.

Definitions

“Minimum automobile parking requirements” means any law, code, or policy that requires a minimum number of off-street, private parking spaces for new residential and commercial developments. This would include the minimum off-street parking requirements that are common in many local zoning ordinances.

The Act defines “development project” broadly to include nearly any project undertaken for the purpose of development of land. “Development project” does not include a project where any portion is designated for use as a hotel or other specified types of transient lodging.

 A “public transportation hub” includes:

• a rail transit station,
• a boat or ferry terminal served by either a bus stop or rail transit station, and
• an intersection of two or more bus routes with a combined frequency of bus service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

A “public transportation corridor” means a street on which one or more bus routes have a combined frequency of bus service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The Act does not define “morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”

This means the Act could affect Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) stations, Metra stations, Amtrak stations, and certain CTA or Pace bus routes providing frequent bus service.

Impact on Local Authority (Preemption of Home Rule Authority)

The Act applies to home rule and non-home rule units of local government.

Reserved Powers and Exceptions for Local Governments

While minimum automobile parking requirements would be generally prohibited near transit under this Act, local governments would retain the authority to regulate other aspects of parking and development, including:

1. Maximum Parking: A unit of local government is not prevented from enacting or enforcing local laws that establish a maximum parking requirement.
2. On-Street Parking: The Act does not prevent a unit of local government from regulating access to on-street parking.
3. Bicycle Parking: The Act does not restrict a unit of local government from enacting or enforcing local laws that establish a minimum parking requirement for bicycles, including electric-assisted bicycles.
4. Regulation of Voluntarily Provided Parking: If a developer chooses to provide off-street automobile parking voluntarily, the local government may require parking spaces to be:

• made available for car-share vehicles;
• shared with the public; or
• made available only for a fee (a local government may not require voluntarily provided parking to be provided free of charge).

Application to Existing Agreement or Site Plan

The Act would not apply if the requirements conflict with a contractual agreement or approved site plan that was executed or approved on or before the effective date of the Act. However, the prohibition would apply to any amendment or extension to the contractual agreement or approved site plan, if that amendment or extension increases automobile parking requirements. The Act does not define “contractual agreement” or “approved site plan,” so local governments should consult their attorneys about whether the Act would apply.

Next Steps

Local governments may need to evaluate areas in their community near transit that could be affected by the Act, and analyze their current zoning regulations for those areas, specifically their current parking requirements.

If the Governor signs the encompassing transit bill, the Act will be effective on June 1, 2026. If the Act does become effective, local governments could still encourage developers to voluntarily provide more off-street parking by (1) requiring parking spaces to be shared with the public; or (2) adopting on-street parking restrictions. Local governments could also amend their zoning application forms to ask an applicant to proactively assert whether the Act applies, so planning staff can review the grounds for that claim. In any event, local governments should contact their attorneys to evaluate how the Act might affect areas served by public transit.

Post Authored by Daniel J. Bolin, Ancel Glink

Read More

Both Houses Pass the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act

Both Houses Pass the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act

  Tuesday, November 04, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Illinois General Assembly passed a number of bills in the veto session that may be of interest to local governments, including HB 576 which creates the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act. While HB 576 was designed to protect certain state legislative and executive officials, and certain county officials (and not local government officials), the bill's ban on "government agencies" displaying or posting personal information about public officials who make a request that this information not be publicly disclosed expressly applies to units of local government and school districts. The bill has been sent to the Governor for signature.

If signed by the Governor, the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act would prohibit government agencies (including units of local government) from displaying, posting, or disclosing a public official's personal information if the government agency has received a written request from the public official to refrain from disclosing that personal information. It would also require government agencies to remove that content within five business days of a written request under the new Act. The Act also prohibits persons, businesses, and associations from publicly posting or displaying a public official's personal information online when the public official has made a written request that this information not be disclosed. 

"Personal information" is defined in the bill as follows:

"Personal information" means a home address, home telephone number, mobile telephone number, pager number, personal email address, social security number, federal tax identification number, checking and savings account numbers, credit card numbers, marital status, and identity of children under the age of 18.

"Public official" is defined in the bill as follows:

"Public official" includes 

(1) members or former members of the Illinois General Assembly;

(2) constitutional officers or former constitutional officers; 

(3) elected or appointed State's Attorneys

(4) appointed Public Defenders; and

(5) county clerks and members of the Board of Election Commissioners whose responsibilities include administering and overseeing elections.

The bill would also make it unlawful for anyone to knowingly publicly post on the Internet the personal information of a public official or his or her immediate family of the person knows or reasonably should know that publicly posting that information poses an imminent and serious threat to the health and safety of the public official or the public official's immediate family and if the violation is a proximate cause of bodily injury or death of the public official or family member. Violation of this provision would be a Class 3 felony. 

The bill would also amend FOIA to expressly exempt the personal information of public officials from disclosure. 

The would also make several other changes to various statutes, including the Election Code. First, the bill would amend a provision limiting expenditures by a political committee so that it does not apply to expenses relating to personal security services or cybersecurity measures for public officials. It also requires the State Board of Elections to redact the home addresses of public officials and current and past officers of political committees upon written request, and home addresses of candidates for public office upon expiration of the objection filing period, upon request. The bill would also amend the Vehicle Code and FOID card statute to allow public officials to use their work addresses rather than home addresses on their ID cards and vehicle registration applications.

Read More

Court Rules in Favor of Sheriff's Office in FOIA Challenge

Court Rules in Favor of Sheriff's Office in FOIA Challenge

  Monday, November 03, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a sheriff's office in a lawsuit challenging the sheriff office's response to a FOIA request submitted by an arrestee who had been detained in county jail. Staake v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Office.

Plaintiff was arrested, booked, and detained in a county jail on various criminal charges. While in county jail, plaintiff allegedly made statements to others over the jail's recorded phone lines about an order of protection his wife had against him as well as the criminal offenses that led to his arrest. Plaintiff filed multiple FOIA requests with the sheriff's office asking for those recordings, but the requests were denied by the sheriff's office. Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the sheriff's office claiming it violated FOIA in denying his FOIA request. The trial court ruled in favor of the sheriff's office, agreeing with the sheriff's office that the records were exempt from FOIA because plaintiff failed to establish how those recordings were "relevant" to his pending or potential claims or cases. 

On appeal, the Appellate Court reviewed section 7(1)(e-10) of FOIA, which exempts from FOIA the following:

(e-10) Law enforcement records of other persons requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, including, but not limited to, arrest and booking records, mug shots, and crime scene photographs, except as these records may be relevant to the requester's current or potential case or claim.

The Appellate Court analyzed whether Section 7(1)(e-10) applied to the plaintiff's FOIA request and determined that it did, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the requested records "may be relevant" to any pending or potential case or claim. Because he did not meet his burden, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of the sheriff's office.

Read More

In the Zone: Court Finds No Procedural Due Process Violation in Zoning Challenge

In the Zone: Court Finds No Procedural Due Process Violation in Zoning Challenge

  Friday, October 31, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Illinois Appellate Court recently issued an opinion in a zoning challenge overturning a trial court's ruling that a city's zoning decision violated a neighboring property owner's procedural due process rights. Clark v. City of Galena.

In 2022, a developer filed an application requesting annexation and zoning approvals for a proposed mixed-use development on 80 acres of land in and adjacent to the city. The project included rental cottages, vineyard and winery, gardens, etc. The city's zoning board held a public hearing where the developer presented its application, and neighboring property owners and other interested parties spoke in opposition to the project. After closing the public hearing, the zoning board voted and sent its recommendation to the city council. The city council considered the zoning board's recommendation, and also allowed citizens to provide public comment on the project before voting in favor of both the proposed annexation and zoning approvals for the project. A few months later, the developer proposed amendments to the project, including annexation of additional property, and another zoning board hearing and city council meeting were held, and citizens were again allowed to provide testimony and public comment. The requested zoning changes and annexation of additional territory were approved by the city council.

A neighboring property owner who opposed the project filed a lawsuit against the city and developer to challenge the city's zoning decisions. She claimed that the zoning decisions violated various constitutional rights, including her procedural due process rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the city and developer on all counts except for the neighbor's claim that her procedural due process rights were violated. 

The city and developer appealed, and the Appellate Court overturned the trial court's ruling in favor of the neighbor on her procedural due process claims. The Appellate Court noted that zoning decisions are presumed valid, and that the neighbor had the burden to overcome that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the Appellate Court reviewed the process that was held by the city, including the two public hearings held by the zoning board where citizens were allowed to, and did in fact, speak about the project, including the neighbor who filed the lawsuit, and the multiple city council meetings on the project where the city council also allowed public comment, in which the neighbor participated as did other interested citizens. The Court found that both the zoning board and city council discussed the project in detail during that process, and went through the criteria for granting relief, before voting on the project.

The Appellate Court rejected the trial court's determination that the city's procedure deprived the neighbor of her procedural due process rights because the city failed to proactively offer her an opportunity to cross-examine the developer's witnesses. The Appellate Court held that the neighbor had an unlimited opportunity to pose questions about the project, and that she had not made a request to directly cross-examine the developer's witnesses, nor did the city deny such a request, so there was no deprivation of her due process rights. 

In sum, the Appellate Court found that the city's process was "thorough and allowed an interchange of evidence and opinions regarding the project," and that the city has an interest in an efficient process. The Court further found that the city was not required to proactively offer an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses without a request by a citizen, as that would impose an additional burden for little benefit given the process provided in this case. As a result, the Court held that the neighbor failed to meet her burden to provide by clear and convincing evidence that her procedural due process rights were violated by the city's approval of the project. The Court also noted that the neighbor's failure to raise an objection to the city's process at the hearing resulted in a forfeiture of that issue in court.

Read More

Local Government Law Institute 2025

Local Government Law Institute 2025

  Monday, October 20, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

Illinois General Assembly Passes Bill Amending OMA and FOIA

Illinois General Assembly Passes Bill Amending OMA and FOIA

  Thursday, October 16, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

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

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

  Friday, October 10, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

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

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

  Thursday, October 09, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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

Read More

Ancel Glink at the APA-IL Conference

Ancel Glink at the APA-IL Conference

  Wednesday, October 08, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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)

Read More

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

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

  Tuesday, October 07, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

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

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

  Monday, October 06, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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. 

Read More

Involuntary Annexation Upheld by Appellate Court

Involuntary Annexation Upheld by Appellate Court

  Wednesday, October 01, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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.

Read More

Ancel Glink at the 2025 ILA Conference

Ancel Glink at the 2025 ILA Conference

  Tuesday, September 30, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

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)

Read More