Recent Court Decisions

A member of the public submitted a request for review to the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor's office (PAC) alleging that a City of Peru (City) pool committee (Committee) violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by holding meetings closed to the public regarding building a new pool in the City. The PAC analyzed the issue presented using a four-factor test established by the Illinois Supreme Court to determine whether the Committee would constitute a “subsidiary body” subject to OMA requirements.

Section 1 of OMA states that "it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly." Section 1.02 of the OMA defines "public body" as including "all legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the State, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this State, and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but limited to committees and subcommittees[.]" Generally, the OMA applies to a majority of a quorum of school board members when discussing public business contemporaneously, commonly three or more school board members. In analyzing whether an entity constitutes an advisory body of a public body, Illinois courts have examined: (1) who appoints the members of the entity, (2) the formality of their appointment, (3) whether the members are paid for their tenure, (4) the entity's assigned duties, including duties reflected in its bylaws or authorizing statute, (5) whether the entity's role is solely advisory or whether it also has a deliberative or investigative function, (6) whether the entity is subject to government control or otherwise accountable to any public body, (7) whether the entity has a budget, (8) the entity's place within the larger public body, and (9) the impact of decisions or recommendations that the entity makes. University Professionals of Illinois v. Stukel, 344 Ill. App. 3d 856, 865 (2003). Courts have considered four primary factors in determining whether an entity is a "subsidiary body" of a public body: (1) the extent to which the entity has a legal existence independent of government resolution, (2) the degree of government control exerted over the entity, (3) the extent to which the entity is publicly funded, and (4) the nature of the functions performed by the entity." Better Government Ass'n v. Illinois High School Ass'n, 2017 IL 121124, ¶ 26.

First, the PAC found that the City created the Committee as part of the City’s planning process to construct a new pool in the City. The City claimed the Committee was an informal advisory committee doing preliminary background work for the City to consider. The PAC stated that even if the City labels the Committee or its gatherings as “informal” that does not shield the gatherings or discussions about public business from OMA requirements. The PAC determined that the Committee would not legally exist independently of the City.

Second, the PAC found that the Mayor appointed the members of the Committee, the Committee’s recommendations were all subject to City Council review and approval, and the City had been directly involved in and controlled most of the Committee activities relating to building a pool in the City, including providing assistance related to finance, engineering and zoning, and parks and recreations matters. The PAC determined that the City exerts a significant amount of government control over the Committee.

Third, the PAC found that even though the City claimed that the members of the committee are volunteering, the Committee received at least some indirect public funding by virtue of being part of the City, and salaried City officials and employees devoted their time to supporting the Committee’s activities. For example, the Mayor appointed to the Committee two members of the City Council as well as the City's Director of Parks, Recreation and Special Events.

Finally, the PAC found that the Committee was tasked with assessing the potential designs, costs, and locations for a new City pool, and reporting its findings to the City, which are roles typically performed by a municipal committee. The PAC determined that the City utilized the Committee to perform governmental functions.

The PAC concluded that the Committee is a subsidiary body of the City subject to the requirements of OMA.

A copy of the decision can be found here.

This binding opinion from the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (PAC) discusses an issue under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of whether the City of Chicago (City) Department of Finance (Department) improperly withheld a record responsive to a FOIA request for settlement-related records.

It is the public policy of the State of Illinois that "all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government." 5 ILCS 140/1. Under FOIA, "(a]ll records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it is exempt." 5 ILCS 140/1.2. Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA exempts from disclosure: “Communications between a public body and an attorney or auditor representing the public body that would not be subject to discovery in litigation, and materials prepared or compiled by or for a public body in anticipation of a criminal, civil or administrative proceeding upon the request of an attorney advising the public body, and materials prepared or compiled with respect to internal audits of public bodies. A party asserting that a communication to an attorney is protected by the attorney-client privilege must show that "(1) a statement originated in confidence that it would not be disclosed; (2) it was made to an attorney acting in his legal capacity for the purpose of securing legal advice or services; and (3) it remained confidential." Cangelosi v. Capasso, 366 Ill. App. 3d 225, 228 (2006). A public body that withholds records under section 7(1)(m) "can meet its burden only by providing some objective indicia that the exemption is applicable under the circumstances." Illinois Education Ass'n v. Illinois State Board of Education, 204 Ill. 2d 456, 470 (2003).

Here, the PAC reviewed the settlement record at issue and was unable to find an indication that legal advice was sought or provided or that the City attorney who signed the record was acting as the Alderman's attorney in connection with the settlement. The City had been dismissed from the case and the Alderman was represented by private counsel. Although part of the record briefly explains the City's involvement in the settlement, neither that statement nor any other portion of the record renders legal advice to the Alderman or indicates that the Alderman sought legal advice pertaining to the litigation and settlement from the City attorney. Rather, the withheld record is a document concerning the settlement which is signed by the Alderman and an attorney with the City's Law Department. The City attorney was representing the City while the Alderman had his own attorney, and the parties had separate interests in the subject that the withheld record addresses.

In addition, the PAC cited to the Illinois Constitution at Article VIII, section 1(c), which provides that "[r]eports and records of the obligation, receipt and use of public funds of the State, units of local government and school districts are public records available for inspection by the public according to law." The constitutional right to information regarding the use of public funds is incorporated into the provisions of FOIA. 5 ILCS 140/2.5. ("All records relating to the obligation, receipt, and use of public funds of the State, units of local government, and school districts are public records subject to inspection and copying by the public.").

The PAC concluded that the public has a constitutional right to know the purposes for which public funds are expended. Because the withheld settlement record relates to such a purpose and because it is not a communication protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Department did not sustain its burden of proving that the record is exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(m) of FOIA.

A copy of the decision can be found here.
 

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s E-rate program, which supports internet access for schools and millions of students across the country.  Consumers’ Research, an advocacy group, challenged the constitutionality of the funding mechanism for the E-rate program. The group claimed, in part, that Congress had improperly delegated its taxing power because the FCC uses a private entity, the Universal Service Administrative Co., to recommend contribution rates and collect fees that fund the program. The Court found that the FCC was properly exercising its authority to implement the E-rate law, which directs the FCC to collect contributions that are “sufficient” to support the program. 

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) ruled that a school board’s refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of classroom instruction involving “LGBTQ+ inclusive” storybooks violated the parents’ right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

During the 2022-2023 school year, the Montgomery Board of Education (Board) in Maryland approved certain storybooks featuring LGBTQ+ characters and themes for use in the K-12 curriculum, in an effort to better represent the diversity of students and families in the district. The Board expected that teachers would incorporate the books as part of literacy instruction in the classroom.  Initially, the Board notified parents and allowed them to opt their children out of instruction involving the storybooks if they objected to it. However, for the 2023-2024 school year, the Board reversed its decision and prohibited parents from opting their children out of the instruction. The Board determined the volume of opt-out requests from parents had become unmanageable and disruptive to the classroom environment.  The Board was also concerned that permitting some students to leave the classroom while the storybooks were being used would cause other students to experience social stigma and isolation. Parents of elementary school students subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Board, claiming that they should be able to opt their children out of the instruction because their exposure to the books was an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ free exercise of religion, specifically their right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

The Court examined the storybooks at issue and found they conveyed “normative” messages to young children about sex and gender that were hostile to their parents’ religious beliefs. The Court also noted that discussion guides provided to the teachers encouraged them to reinforce the books’ viewpoints and “reprimand” children who disagreed. Relying on a past decision in which the Court ruled a state could not compel Amish parents to send their children to high school (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)), the Court held that the use of the storybooks in the curriculum, combined with the Board’s refusal to allow parents to opt out, was an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ free exercise of religion.  Therefore, the parents were entitled to notice and the opportunity to opt-out of instruction involving the books.

In its dissent, the Court’s liberal minority stated that students’ mere exposure to the storybooks in class did not give rise to a free exercise claim.  The minority warned that requiring schools to provide advance notice and the opportunity to opt out of every material that could conflict with parents’ religious beliefs will “impose impossible administrative burdens on schools” and will have “serious chilling effects on public school curricula.” The minority argued that the majority’s holding could mean that schools would need to provide notice and opt-out to parents who have religious objections to books expressing implicit support for women’s rights, interfaith marriage, consumption of meat, and other topics.

Following this decision, districts will need to carefully weigh the risks of introducing or maintaining the use of instructional materials that conflict with parents’ religious beliefs without giving parents the opportunity to opt out of the instruction.      Specific concerns and objections to material used in a school’s curriculum should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with school board policy and in consultation with the board attorney.    

On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) issued its opinion in A.J.T., et al. v. Osseo Area Schools, Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 279, et al.  The Court vacated the 8^th circuit court’s decision and remanded the case while setting forth that the same standard must be applied by courts in cases involving alleged failures to accommodate students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act) as in other disability discrimination contexts. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the unanimous opinion for the Court. 

Petitioner A. J. T. is a young female student who suffers from seizures throughout the day that create safety concerns and interfere with her capacity to learn. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she “can’t attend school before noon,” however, she is “alert and able to learn” from noon until about 6 p.m. Until middle school, she had been provided reasonable accommodation although at a reduced number of hours for her school day compared with other students. Prior to the start of middle school, the school district proposed further cutting back the length of her school day. A. J. T.’s parents had requested that she receive evening instruction and schooling hours comparable to her nondisabled peers, however, school administrators again denied those requests and also rejected proposals to maintain at least the same length instructional day that A. J. T. had been receiving in elementary school. A. J. T.’s parents filed an IDEA complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education, alleging that the school’s refusal to provide after-hours instruction denied A. J. T. a free appropriate public education. The parents were successful on the IDEA complaint.

A. J. T. and her parents also sued the school district and the Osseo School Board (collectively, the District) in federal court, alleging violations of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The courts below held that A. J. T.’s claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act could not go forward because she had not shown that school officials acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” That heightened standard, the lower courts explained, applies uniquely in the educational services context and requires a more demanding showing compared to other sorts of disability discrimination claims.

The Supreme Court found there was no evidence in the statutory language or legislative history that supported imposing such a high burden on students when other groups with disabilities would not be required to show bad faith or gross misjudgment to bring a discrimination claim. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student and determined that students with disabilities filing claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act are held to the same standard as other individuals alleging disability discrimination in different contexts.

A copy of the case can be found here.