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