ISBE Has Issued 408 Pages of AI Guidance: What School Districts Need to Know

ISBE Has Issued 408 Pages of AI Guidance: What School Districts Need to Know

  Friday, August 07, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) has published statewide guidance on artificial intelligence use in schools. This guidance provides schools with a toolbox of instructional use rubrics, model policies, and implementation checklists. However, what it does not provide them with is a single, uniform Illinois model policy ready to adopt. 

This guidance was developed in response to Public Act 104-0399, which in 2025 charged the ISBE with “develop[ing] statewide guidance for school districts and educators on the use of artificial intelligence in elementary and secondary education.” 

School districts are directed to model templates and policies that they can use as “starting points.” Those resources are organized into three distinct policies: a district-wide policy, an Acceptable Use Policy, and an Informed Use Policy. ISBE provides model template resources from other states and districts to support drafting, review, legal/compliance checks, and board adoption processes. 

The guidance also flags that “trust but verify” should govern all AI use where it “should not independently determine special education eligibility, student discipline outcomes, teacher evaluations, hiring decisions, or other high-stake determinations without documented human review and district accountability processes.” 

ISBE indicates it will release additional tailored guidance and no-cost professional learning during the 2026-27 school year. In the meantime, school districts with questions about implementing AI policies or evaluating their current procedures should contract their legal counsel for assistance.

Post Authored by Ronette Leal McCarthy & Betsy Lecy, Ancel Glink

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 107: 2026 APA-CMS Bar Exam

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 107: 2026 APA-CMS Bar Exam

  Monday, July 06, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast released Episode 107: 2026 APA-CMS Bar Exam. In this episode,  the American Planning Association Chicago Metro Section recently teamed up with Ancel Glink’s Quorum Forum podcast for the 11th Annual “Bar Exam” Planning Law Session. Recorded live at Goodwin’s in Chicago, this realistic, simulated law school experience tests planners and land use professionals on the latest legal precedents in wind energy, annexation, and First Amendment protections. As is tradition, all participants passed the bar, and teams competed for the prestigious (and five-foot-tall) Ancel Glink Cup. In this episode, Ancel Glink’s Dan Bolin, Megan Mack, and Tyler Smith are joined by special guest Phil Green, a Local Gov 250 Government Champion, who undergoes a high-tech “firmware update” to become the session’s first AI-powered planning law assistant.

In This Episode

§  [00:00] The Roll Call: Host Dan Bolin calls the meeting to order with professors Megan Mack and Tyler Smith, plus local government champion Phil Green.

§  [05:00] Round 1: Democracy at the Doorstep: Phil discusses his recognition as a Local Gov 250 Champion and his work on “democracy at the doorstep” in Hoffman Estates.

§  [11:30] Case 1.1 - Wind Farm Bans: A look at Hickory Wind LLC v. Village of Cedar Point, exploring why outright bans on lawful land uses exceed non-home rule authority.

§  [19:00] Case 1.2 - Zoning Finality: In Chosen Consulting LLC v. Town Council of Highland, we learn why ADA and discrimination claims do not bypass the requirement for a final zoning decision.

§  [22:30] Case 1.3 - Cross-Examination Rights: A resort project in Galena highlights the importance of maintaining a record when residents forfeit their right to cross-examine witnesses.

§  [26:30] Round 2: The Road to Houston: Phil shares takeaways from serving as the Education Chair for NPC26 in Detroit and teases a “Moon Joy” theme for NPC27 in Houston.

§  [31:45] Case 2.1 - Forceful Annexation: We review a 4.7% perimeter gap in Husky Transportation v. Village of Barrington Hills to define the “wholly bounded” standard.

§  [35:45] Case 2.2 - First Amendment Retaliation: The saga of the Minocqua Brewing Co. demonstrates that permit denials are not retaliatory if they would have occurred regardless of protected speech.

§  [39:15] Case 2.3 - The Hamburger UFOs: A whimsical mural case from Kansas tests “intermediate scrutiny” and whether cities can prove that burger art is more distracting than flower art.

§  [42:00] The Future of Planning Law: Megan and Tyler discuss the responsible use of AI in legal practice and how municipalities are responding to data center controversies involving power and water consumption.

§  [46:15] The Reveal of A.I. CPU: Phil Green manifests as the A.I. CPU, an assistant that is 100% confident, 60% accurate, and requires massive amounts of “liquid cooling” to function.

§  [48:00] Round 3: AI-Assisted Answers: The A.I. CPU helps navigate cases on warrantless rental inspections, daily fine calculations, and why missing scaffolding is not a legal defense for safety hazards.

§  [1:02:30] Crowning the Champions: We announce the winners of the 2026 Bar Exam and award the shiny gold Ancel Glink Cup to the “Transit Masters.”

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

Supreme Court Declines to Hear AI Copyright Case

Supreme Court Declines to Hear AI Copyright Case

  Monday, April 20, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in an Artificial Intelligence (AI)/copyright case. Thaler v. Perlmutter. You can read the court of appeals decision here.

A Missouri artist had applied for a copyright registration for visual art he created through the use of AI technology. The U.S. Copyright Office rejected his application because the work was not created by "human authorship" as required to register a copyright. He sued, and both the district court and court of appeals upheld the Copyright Office's denial of his application. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear his appeal, meaning that the Copyright Office's rejection of his application for a copyright for the AI work stands.

This wasn't the first time the Copyright Office rejected registration applications by artists for work generated by AI based on the lack of "human authorship" in the work. This case had been followed by artists, musicians, photographers, and other creators who have used AI in their creative works and were hoping for a different outcome in court. For now, at least, work created by AI is not copyright eligible.

Read More

Another AI Hallucination Case

Another AI Hallucination Case

  Tuesday, March 31, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Although today's case summary isn't related to local government issues, it is an important reminder to be careful in relying on AI (artificial intelligence) for legal work, particularly in filings with the court.

In Dec v. Markwayne Mullin, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a challenge by a Polish citizen who was denied a waiver of the waiting period for a family-based visa that requires a person to leave the country and remain abroad for ten years. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) denied her waiver request and she sued. The district court dismissed her lawsuit, holding that the applicable federal law precludes judicial review of agency decisions on waiver requests. She then appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the dismissal of her case.

In addition to upholding the dismissal of her case, the Seventh Circuit also addressed deficiencies in the appellate brief filed on her behalf by her attorney. The Court noted that her brief cited two cases that do not exist and included an imaginary quotation, which the Court noted had "tell-tale signs of AI hallucinations" (although the plaintiff's attorney argued she did not use AI in her brief). The Court acknowledged that courts have been grappling with the use of generative AI in briefs filed with the court, particularly when it produces AI hallucinations and non-existent case citations. The Court expressed its concerns, particularly that trained lawyers are failing to check the accuracy of legal citations and quotations in their filings with the court. The Court was not only concerned about the plaintiffs' counsel inclusion of these hallucinated cases, but also the fact that opposing counsel in the case (DHS attorneys) failed to catch these errors and bring them to the attention of the court. 

The Court's discussion is a reminder to all lawyers and parties to litigation that they exercise caution in their use of AI in drafting briefs filed with the court and to double-check their legal arguments and any supporting citations. That cautionary reminder is not restricted to the attorneys filing with the court, but also to opposing counsel who fail to catch these errors.

Read More

GSMCON Conference Schedule Released

GSMCON Conference Schedule Released

  Wednesday, March 25, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

For all my government communicator/social media coordinator readers, the Government Social Media Conference (GSMCON) has released its full schedule for this year's annual conference which will take place May 4 - 7, 2026 in New Orleans and will offer both in-person and virtual attendance options. You can find the full schedule here. Note that if you are planning to register for in-person attendance, there are a limited number of those tickets remaining.

If you are going to be at this year's conference, don't miss the two sessions Julie Tappendorf will be presenting (info below):

Thursday, May 7th - 9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.

What Counts as Protected Speech on Social Media?

Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink, PC

We’ll cover what types of comments have First Amendment protection and how those protections apply to your agency’s social media pages. This Speed Session focuses on the core constitutional principles that guide everyday moderation decisions, helping you understand how protected speech plays out in common social-media scenarios.

Thursday, May 7th - 10:15 a,m. – 10:45 a.m.

AI-Generated Content Risks

Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink, PC

This Speed Session highlights the emerging legal risks of artificial intelligence in government social media workflows. We’ll look at how AI may raise questions related to copyright protections for creative content and the considerations social media content creators and moderators should keep in mind. You’ll leave with a clearer understanding of key legal issues to be aware of when using AI tools.

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 101 - Navigating AI's Impact on the Modern Workplace

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 101 - Navigating AI's Impact on the Modern Workplace

  Tuesday, February 10, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast just released Episode 101 featuring Mysi Hall's recent ILCMA presentation, “Digital Decisions: Navigating AI’s Impact on the Modern Workplace.” In this podcast, Mysi examines the current legal landscape surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in labor relations and employment practices.

Highlights:

• The Legal Landscape: Overview of federal and state regulations, including EEOC guidelines on Title VII and the ADA.
• Illinois Specifics: A look at the AI Video Interview Act (AIVIA) and the 2026 amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act.
• Bias and Mitigation: Understanding automation bias, selective adherence, and real-world examples of algorithmic discrimination.
• Labor Relations: How major unions (ILA, SAG-AFTRA, AFL-CIO) are negotiating AI safeguards and transparency.
• Best Practices: Practical steps for employers, including the NIST Risk Management Framework and the importance of human oversight.

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

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 96: Artifical Intelligence v Alex Intelligence

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 96: Artifical Intelligence v Alex Intelligence

  Monday, September 08, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

On the latest episode of Ancel Glink’s Quorum Forum podcast, Ancel Glink Attorneys Dan Bolin and Alex Cambiazo put legal analysis to the test in "Artificial Intelligence v. AlexIntelligence!" Dan plays AI-generated summaries of recent, critical cases affecting local governments and employers, and Alex provides expert insights, corrections, and key takeaways from her own legal summaries. 

Cases Discussed:

• Undercover Officer Misconduct: Veronica Hinton v. The City of Chicago; Matthew O. Bryant; John Doe – Clarifying when an officer’s private actions fall "under color of state law" and the implications for municipal liability.

• Municipal Impoundment Fees: Matthew E. Carter v. The City of Alton – Examining the constitutionality of administrative fees for vehicle impoundment related to criminal offenses and the importance of administrative remedies.

• FOIA & Body Camera Footage: NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. The Chicago Police Department and The Office of Emergency Management and Communications – Understanding law enforcement exemptions under FOIA and the "reasonable expectation of privacy" for body camera recordings of victims and witnesses.

• Employment Discrimination: Kara Mitchell v. Exxon Mobil Corporation – Highlighting the importance of clear, consistent, and well-documented performance review systems in defending against sex discrimination claims.

Also in this Episode:

• A Public Comment segment addressing school flyers and free speech limitations in limited public forums, drawing on E.D. v. Noblesville School District.

• The Department of Public Works discusses Ancel Glink's presence and sessions at the APA-IL State Conference.

Read More