Supreme Court Finds Candidate Has Standing to Challenge Illinois Vote Counting Law and more...

Supreme Court Finds Candidate Has Standing to Challenge Illinois Vote Counting Law

In another U.S. Supreme Court decision this week, the Court reversed the dismissal of a case filed by three candidates for political office that challenged the State of Illinois' procedure for counting mail-in ballots received after election day. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections. The district court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had dismissed the case, finding that the candidates did not have standing to challenge the state law.

Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked or certified no later than election day and received within 2 weeks of election day. Three candidates for various offices sued the Illinois State Board of Elections claiming that the statute violates federal law, specifically that it conflicts with statutes that set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuits based on lack of standing.

On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that at least one of the candidates who had filed a lawsuit challenging the statute had a "personal stake" in the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election to satisfy the requirement for standing. The Court rejected the dissenting justices' argument that the candidates should have to show actual harm (not potential harm) to have standing to sue.

Note that this decision does not address the substance of the claims made by the candidates against the Illinois law, but simply holds that the candidates have standing to have those claims heard in court.

Supreme Court Finds No Fourth Amendment Violation in Warrantless Entry to Home

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion today in Case v. Montana, rejecting an argument that police officers must have "probable cause" to enter a home without a warrant when they encounter an emergency situation. The Court held that the proper test for the emergency exception to the warrant requirement is whether the officer was acting on an objective, reasonable belief that someone inside the home was seriously injured, imminently threatened with an injury, or needed emergency assistance, rather than the "probable cause" standard that applies in criminal cases.

In this case, petitioner's ex-girlfield called police to report that petitioner had been drinking and was threatening suicide. Police officers were dispatched to do a welfare check and when they arrived, determined that the situation was serious and decided to enter the home to render emergency aid. An officer encountered the petitioner holding a black object that the officer thought was a gun, and the officer fired his own rifle. The petitioner was ultimately charged with assaulting a police officer after a handgun was found next to where petitioner stood. Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the evidence at trial, arguing that police had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his home without a warrant. The trial court denied the motion, finding that officers were responding to an emergency (an exception to the warrant requirement).

The case was appealed and made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the trial court's ruling. The Court rejected petitioner's argument that the police officers had to show "probable cause" in order to exercise a warrantless search. Instead, officers must show that they had an "objectively reasonable basis for believing" that their intervention was necessary to prevent serious harm. Here, the officers demonstrated that they were aware of petitioner's mental health and alcohol abuse problems and that he had previously talked about committing suicide. They had statements from his ex-girlfriend that he had threatened to kill himself, and when they went to the home, he refused to respond to their knocking on his door. The Court found that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe petitioner needed emergency aid, so there was no Fourth Amendment violation of his rights in the warrantless entry.

Seventh Circuit Finds in Favor of City in Warrantless Entry and False Arrest Case

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against a City and several police officers, finding that the officers had probable cause to support the arrest and warrantless entry into the arrestee's home. Cannon v. Filip.

Plaintiff sued the City and several police officers claiming they violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his home without a warrant and arrested him for domestic battery. The police officers were acting on a 911 call that claimed the plaintiff was abusing a woman, and entered the home based on their belief that there was exigent circumstances since there was no answer at the home. After questioning both individuals in the home, the officers arrested plaintiff and charged him with domestic battery. Those charges were later dropped and he sued the City and officers. The district court ruled in favor of the City and officers and he appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the police officers had an objective reasonable basis to believe that someone in the home needed immediate aid and there was a compelling need to enter without a warrant. The basis for the officers' belief was the 911 call that there was a domestic violence situation at the home. The Court also rejected plainitff's false arrest claim, finding that there was sufficient probable cause for the arrest based on statements by the woman at the home.

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 100 - Lessons from a Local Government Law Career

We have a quorum! In this special 100th episode of Quorum Forum, we celebrate a major milestone by hosting a special live recording from Ancel Glink’s Chicago headquarters. Our featured guest is our friend and colleague, Julie Tappendorf, who joins us on the eve of her retirement to reflect on her career in local government law. In this career retrospective, Julie shares the professional lessons she learned along her journey—from her early days in military intelligence to becoming a local government lawyer.

Episode Highlights

• From Cryptology to Codes: Julie reflects on her eight years as a Korean cryptologic-linguist in the U.S. Army and how the discipline of military intelligence prepared her for legal practice.

• The Land Use Landscape: We review the evolution of development and annexation agreements. Julie explains how these contracts reduce adversarial friction and why formal agreements are critical for risk management.

• Municipal Minute: Julie shares the origin story of her award-winning blog, Municipal Minute, which has registered over 3.3 million visits. She discusses her foresight in identifying social media as a legal issue for local governments as early as 2011.

• Social Media After Lindke: What the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lindke v. Freed means for local officials. Julie provides essential advice on maintaining separate personal and official accounts and navigating the "actual authority" test.

• The Future of the Field: A candid discussion on the next "tweeting into trouble" moment—Artificial Intelligence. Julie warns about the risks of AI "hallucinations" and the importance of verifying legal output.

• Public Comment Segment: Ancel Glink attorneys share the most impactful lessons they have learned from Julie over the years, ranging from effective meeting procedures to the "gold standard" of responsiveness.

City's Vehicle Forfeiture Program Not an Unconstitutional Taking

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an Illinois municipality's vehicle forfeiture program was not an unconstitutional "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. O'Donnell v. City of Chicago.

The City adopted an ordinance authorizing it to immobilize, tow, impound, and ultimately dispose of vehicles in enforcing its traffic code. After the City exercised its authority and disposed of two vehicles, the vehicle owners sued the City claiming that its forfeiture scheme was an unconstitutional taking under both the U.S. and Illinois constitutions. The district court dismissed the claims, which was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal, finding that the City's forfeiture program (which included provisions for notice and a hearing and included graduated penalties for multiple violations of the traffic code) was an exercise of the City's police power to enforce its traffic code, a punitive remedy that does not constitute a taking.

Municipal Minute