Blanchard v. Berrios
2016 IL 120315
| Ill. | 2017Background
- In 2007 Cook County created an Office of the Independent Inspector General (IG) by ordinance to investigate corruption, fraud, waste, mismanagement, unlawful political discrimination, and misconduct in county government, including in offices of separately elected county officials. The IG may request information, take sworn interviews, and issue subpoenas enforceable in Cook County circuit court.
- The IG investigated two homeowner’s exemptions granted to an employee of the Cook County Assessor’s office, requested records, and — after the Assessor refused (advising FOIA instead) — issued subpoenas for documents and the employee’s personnel file.
- The Assessor objected, arguing the Board lacked constitutional authority to require elected county officers to cooperate with IG investigations or to be subject to the IG’s subpoenas; he maintained the IG could not intrude on his supervisory control of his office.
- The IG filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Assessor must cooperate and comply with the subpoena; both sides moved for summary judgment on the ordinance’s constitutionality as applied to the Assessor.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the IG; the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the appellate court, holding the IG ordinance constitutional as applied to the Assessor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blanchard / IG) | Defendant's Argument (Berrios / Assessor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cook County had constitutional authority to enact the IG Ordinance imposing a duty on elected county officers to cooperate with IG investigations and comply with subpoenas | IG: Home rule authority permits Cook County to enact ordinances addressing local problems; the ordinance targets local corruption and is a valid exercise of section 6(a) home rule power | Assessor: Ordinance exceeds county authority; it interferes with the Assessor’s historical supervisory powers and intrudes on matters that do not "pertain to" county government; subpoenas cannot be imposed on separately elected officers | Held: Ordinance is a valid exercise of home rule power and applies to elected county officers, including the Assessor; subpoenas enforceable. |
| Whether section 4(d) (county officers’ duties derive from law, ordinance, or common law) forbids altering common-law powers of elected officers by county ordinance | IG: Section 4(d) expressly permits duties to be provided or altered by county ordinance | Assessor: Section 4(d) preserves traditional common-law supervisory powers and cannot be used to strip oversight from an elected officer | Held: Section 4(d) allows alteration of common-law powers by county ordinance; it was intended to modify pre-1970 precedents like Walsh. |
| Whether home rule is precluded because the subject (homeowner’s exemption/assessor’s functions) is a statewide matter | IG: The ordinance addresses misconduct in county government, not property tax policy; the integrity of county offices is a local concern fitting home rule | Assessor: Investigation of exemptions implicates statewide property-tax administration and thus is not a local matter | Held: The ordinance addresses local corruption and county affairs; the State’s interest in tax policy does not preclude county authority to investigate local malfeasance. |
| Whether Cook County may grant subpoena power to a non–law-enforcement official like the Inspector General | IG: Home rule units may grant investigative and subpoena powers to county bodies or officers, analogous to State commissions | Assessor: Absent explicit legislative grant, a local unit cannot issue subpoenas to compel elected officers | Held: Under home rule, Cook County may vest subpoena power in the Inspector General; the fact that the IG is not a law-enforcement officer does not invalidate the power. |
Key Cases Cited
- Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296 (statutory/ordinance construction standards and presumption of constitutionality)
- Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon, 216 Ill. 2d 402 (de novo review of legal questions about local authority)
- City of Chicago v. StubHub, Inc., 2011 IL 111127 (scope and deference to broad home rule powers under article VII §6)
- Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 103 Ill. 2d 483 (analysis whether subject pertains to local government affairs)
- Chicago Bar Ass’n v. County of Cook, 102 Ill. 2d 438 (previous holding that property assessment regulation did not pertain to county affairs)
- Carver v. Sheriff of La Salle County, 203 Ill. 2d 497 (distinguishable; addressed tort-immunity/employment status, not home rule scope)
- Moy v. County of Cook, 159 Ill. 2d 519 (distinguishable; addressed respondeat superior and employment status)
- People ex rel. Walsh v. Board of Commissioners, 397 Ill. 293 (pre-1970 common-law powers of county officers; 1970 constitution modified its rule)
- Oak Park Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Village of Oak Park, 54 Ill. 2d 200 (constitutional interpretation principles; harmonizing provisions)