Court Sends Social Media Defamation Case Back to Trial Court to Award Compensatory Damages and more...

Court Sends Social Media Defamation Case Back to Trial Court to Award Compensatory Damages

Although this case does not involve local governments, it is an interesting case involving social media posts and a defamation lawsuit. Sullivan v. Schiman.

A patient posted on a local "updates and information" Facebook page about a doctor she had seen in the emergency room. Her post named the doctor and claimed that he had sexually assaulted her in giving a rectal examination. That Facebook post was then made a "featured post" by the Facebook page's administrator, which meant it was the first post on that Facebook page. When the doctor learned about the post, he filed a complaint against both the patient and the Facebook page's administrator alleging defamation "per se" among other claims. The case went to trial, and testimony by a nurse who was present during the exam contradicted the claims made by the patient in her Facebook post. At the end of the trial, the judge found in favor of the doctor on his defamation claim against both defendants, and awarded him $1.00 in nominal damages from both the poster and the page administrator.

The doctor appealed on two grounds. First, the doctor claimed the trial court erred in awarding only $1.00 in damages. Second, the doctor argued that the trial court should have imposed sanctions against the page administrator and his attorney for providing false answers in discovery.

The Appellate Court agreed with the doctor on both issues. First, the Appellate Court ruled that nominal damages were not reasonable in this case where several thousand people saw the Facebook post accusing him of a violent sexual assault, which, among other things, would support an award of compensatory damages rather than only nominal damages. Defamation "per se" occurs when a false statement is so inherently harmful that the damage to a person's reputation is obvious on its face, meaning the doctor did not need to prove actual monetary or special damages. The Appellate Court also found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying sanctions for the discovery violations. The Appellate Court sent the case back to the trial court to enter an appropriate award of damages and to reevaluate the sanctions request.

Court Rejects Excessive Force Claim Against Police Officers

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling upholding a district court's decision in favor of city police officers in an excessive force case. Davis v. City of Elgin.

Police were dispatched to a home after someone called to report that an individual was threatening his ex-wife and roommate with a shotgun. Police called the suspect, who threatened to harm himself with a knife. The police then surrounded the house but the suspect had already left the home and gone to his neighbors. The suspect came outside to the porch but when he refused police orders to come out further, police fired at him with a non-lethal impact weapon. After the suspect threatened to harm the officer who shot him, officers shot him again. The suspect eventually pled guilty to disorderly conduct, and then filed a lawsuit against the city and the police officers involved in the incident claiming that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court ruled against the suspect, and he appealed.

The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, finding that the suspect did not establish that the officers violated a clearly established right to be free from a particular use of force. The Court found that the officers had good reason not to want the suspect to go back into the house so he could potentially grab a weapon, and that the officers had knowledge of his earlier threats with a gun against his ex-wife, as well as his threat that he had a knife. In sum, the Court found that the officers had qualified immunity. The Court also held that the suspect did not meet his burden to show a theory of liability against the city itself.

In the Zone: Court Denies Injunction Against Village's Proposed Storm Improvements

To alleviate flooding, a municipality designed and planned certain modifications to its stormwater system. A quarry owner opposed the planned improvements and filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop the municipality from modifying its stormwater system as planned. The trial court denied the injunction and ruled that the municipality possessed an easement across the quarry that was granted by a predecessor owner of the quarry. The owner appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the ruling of the trial court. First, the Court determined that there was substantial evidence that the municipality held an easement across the quarry based on the installation of a stormwater pipe with the agreement of the predecessor quarry owner and language contained in an easement document. Next, the Court rejected the owner's argument that the municipality had abandoned its easement. Finally, the Court held that the owner had not established the elements necessary to obtain an injunction. In sum, the Court upheld the ruling in favor of the municipality. Hanson Aggregates Midwest, Inc. v. Village of La Grange.

Seventh Circuit Upholds "Protect Illinois Communities Act" that Restricts Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines

The Illinois General Assembly enacted the Protect Illinois Communities Act following a deadly shooting at a Chicago suburb’s Independence Day parade. That Act criminalizes the manufacture, sale, delivery, purchase, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, among other things. The Act contains a grandfather clause that allows preexisting lawful owners of the regulated items to continue possessing them.

Shortly after the Act was adopted, several lawsuits were filed to challenge its constitutionality. The district court decisions were divided, with one court granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Act and two district courts denying injunctive relief. Those appeals made their way to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which consolidated the cases and issued a ruling in 2023 that rejected preliminary relief to the challengers and sent the case back to the district courts for further proceedings.

One of the consolidated cases proceeded to a bench trial. The district court in that case held that much of the Act violated the Second Amendment and that the offending provisions were not severable, and the court enjoined enforcement of the Act in its entirety. The defendants appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which recently reversed the ruling and upheld the Act, including its restrictions on AR-15s and thirty-round rifle magazines. Barnett et al., v. Raoul.

First, the Seventh Circuit held that the challengers failed to meet their burden to show that all of the Act's regulations were facially invalid. Second, the Seventh Circuit assumed for purposes of its ruling that the regulated items constituted "arms" under the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, meaning that they were presumptively entitled to constitutional protection under the Second Amendment. Next, the Seventh Circuit applied the test established by the Supreme Court for challenges under the Second Amendment and determined that the Act was consistent with the principles that "underpin our regulatory tradition" because legislatures have long imposed restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons like those regulated by the Act. Further, the Seventh Circuit found the Act’s “burden on the right of armed self defense" to be minimal. In sum, the Seventh Circuit held that the challengers failed to meet their burden in a facial challenge to the Act's constitutionality under the Second Amendment.

Illinois Adopts Amendments to Child Care Licensing; Provides Direction to Newly Organized Department of Early Childhood

Two years ago, the State of Illinois began the process of consolidating the operation and management of programs previously administered by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS), Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), and the Governor’s Office of Early Childhood Development (GOECD). As of July 1, 2026, the Illinois Department of Early Childhood (IDEC) began operations to complete the transition.

Just before IDEC began operating, the Governor signed into law Public Act 104-0480 adopting comprehensive reforms in license regulations for day care centers. The new act creates three tiers of licensing and registration: Day Care Center Providers, Recognized Alternative Providers and Exempt Providers. Most importantly for local governments, the amendments re-affirm the State’s double exemption for programs operated by local governments so long as those programs meet defined statutory parameters. Eligible programs will be exempt from regulation as a Day Care Center Provider and from registration as a Recognized Alternative Provider.

To qualify for the double exemption, a local government (or combination of local governments pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement) may demonstrate it is operating a special activities program, such as athletics, recreation, crafts instruction, music, dance, drama, sports, or similar activities offered by a unit of local government, including special activities programs offered by 2 or more units of local government pursuant to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. (There are other exemptions for school-based extracurricular activities conducted outside of the school day.)

These types of special activities programs will qualify for the double exemption if they demonstrate all the following requirements:

(A) State law authorizes the unit of local government to offer the program and an elected or appointed board of the unit of local government has adopted policies governing the operation of the program, pursuant to Section 8-10 of the Park District Code or other applicable law.

(B) The program is offered to the following categories of children and the parent or legal guardian of each child has received written acknowledgement that the program is not licensed by the Department under this Act:

(i) children at least 5 years of age for no more than 100 continuous days in any 12-month period when school is not in session;

(ii) children at least 3 years of age for no more than 3.5 continuous hours at a time; or

(iii) children under 3 years of age for no more than one hour at a time.

(C) The program does not advertise to the public as a pre-school program, licensed early care and education provider, licensed child care, or licensed day care.

(D) The program conducts the following investigations on all employees of the program no less than once every 5 years:

(i) background investigations pursuant to Section 8-23 of the Park District Code, Section 16a-5 of the Chicago Park District Act, or other applicable law;

(ii) a (free) name check against State and national sex offender registries; and

(iii) a (free) Child Abuse and Neglect Tracking System (CANTS) name check through the Department at no cost to the unit of local government.

(E) The program conducts the following investigations on all volunteers of the program no less than once every 5 years:

(i) background investigations pursuant to Section 8-23 of the Park District Code, Section 16a-5 of the Chicago Park District Act, or other applicable law;

(ii) a (free) name check against State and national sex offender registries; and

(iii) a (free) Child Abuse and Neglect Tracking System (CANTS) name check through the Department at no cost to the unit of local government.

(F) The unit of local government has an emergency preparedness and response plan for the location of the special activities program.

(G) The program does not participate in the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) or receive funding pursuant to the Early Childhood Block Grant.

If a program fails to satisfy all the requirements, it will be required to either obtain a license as a day care center or register as a recognized alternative provider.

Some local governments have recently been asked by DCFS to “apply” for exempt status. Public Act 104-0480 clarifies whether this is necessary. Section 3.01 of the Child Care Act, as amended, provides

The Department of Early Childhood shall provide written verification of exemption and description of compliance with standards for the health, safety, and development of the children who receive the services upon submission by the provider of, in addition to any other documentation required by the Department of Early Childhood, a notarized statement that the provider facility complies with: (1) the standards of the Department of Public Health or local health department, (2) the fire safety standards of the State Fire Marshal, and (3) if operated in a public school building, the health and safety standards of the State Board of Education.

The amendments related to licensing and registration requirements will become effective for all providers other than park districts on July 1, 2027, but not until July 1, 2028 for park districts. Programs operating under a current 2-year licensing exemption shall be allowed to continue to operate under that exemption until it expires or until July 1, 2028, whichever is later.

Keep an eye open for IDEC adopting new administrative regulations implementing the revised statutory scheme.

Post Authored by Adam Simon, Ancel Glink

• View comments • Track comments •

Municipal Minute