Blanchard v. Berrios
2016 IL 120315
| Ill. | 2016Background
- In 2007 Cook County enacted an ordinance creating an Independent Inspector General (IG) with authority to investigate corruption, fraud, waste, mismanagement, unlawful political discrimination, or misconduct in county government, including in offices of separately elected county officials; the IG may issue subpoenas enforceable in Cook County Circuit Court.
- The IG requested documents relating to two homeowner’s exemptions granted by an employee of the Assessor’s office; the Assessor refused, directing the IG to use FOIA instead.
- The IG served subpoenas on the Assessor seeking the requested documents and the employee’s personnel file; the Assessor objected, asserting the IG lacked authority to subpoena an elected county officer.
- The IG sued for a declaratory judgment and to enforce the subpoena; both sides moved for summary judgment on whether the ordinance’s cooperation/subpoena requirements are constitutional as applied to the Assessor.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the IG; the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding the IG Ordinance is a valid exercise of Cook County’s home rule and county-officer authority and that the Assessor must comply with the subpoena.
Issues
| Issue | Blanchard's Argument (Plaintiff) | Berrios's Argument (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cook County validly exercised home rule power under Ill. Const. art. VII, §6(a) to create IG with subpoena power over elected county officers | Ordinance addresses local problem (corruption/misconduct in county government) and falls within broad home rule authority to regulate for public welfare; county may grant subpoena power to IG | Ordinance exceeds county’s home rule authority because Assessor’s office and its operations do not "pertain to" county government affairs and state has vital interest in property-tax matters | Court held the ordinance pertains to county government affairs, addresses local interest in integrity/efficiency of county offices, and is a valid exercise of home rule power; IG may subpoena the Assessor’s office |
| Whether county ordinance may alter/common-law supervisory powers of elected county officers under Ill. Const. art. VII, §4(d) | County may impose additional duties by ordinance; IG’s investigatory duties do not eliminate core functions but add oversight to protect county interests | Ordinance unlawfully stripped Assessor of common-law supervisory freedom from oversight by other county officers | Court held §4(d) permits alteration of common-law powers by ordinance; nothing in §4 prohibits imposing investigatory/cooperation duties on elected officers |
| Whether IG may be granted subpoena power though not a law-enforcement officer | Subpoena power may be vested in county entities (commissions, committees, IG) as part of home rule authority; IG’s role is investigatory and nonprosecutorial | Subpoena power is an enforcement/law-enforcement function and cannot properly be granted to a non–law-enforcement IG | Court held it is permissible for a home rule county to grant subpoena power to the IG; IG will refer possible crimes to prosecutors (IG is investigatory, not prosecutorial) |
| Whether existence of state regulation of property assessment preempts local investigatory authority | State regulation of property assessment does not displace a county’s local interest in detecting corruption in its offices; mere state involvement is insufficient to preclude local action | Because homeowner’s exemptions and assessment oversight implicate statewide interests (Dept. of Revenue), the county lacks authority to investigate/compel documents in that context | Court rejected this framing: the ordinance targets misconduct in county operations (not property-assessment policy), so state regulation of assessments does not preempt the IG Ordinance’s investigatory scope |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Evanston v. Create, Inc., 85 Ill. 2d 101 (Ill.) (discusses home rule police-power authority and scope)
- Chicago Bar Ass’n v. County of Cook, 102 Ill. 2d 438 (Ill.) (held property-assessment regulation did not pertain to county government affairs for home-rule purposes)
- People ex rel. Walsh v. Board of Commissioners, 397 Ill. 293 (Ill.) (pre-1970 rule that common-law powers of county officers could not be limited by statute)
- Moy v. County of Cook, 159 Ill. 2d 519 (Ill.) (employment-status analysis for tort-immunity/respondeat superior contexts)
- Carver v. Sheriff of La Salle County, 203 Ill. 2d 497 (Ill.) (indemnification and employment-status considerations in Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act)