Rushton v. Department of Corrections, 160 N.E.3d 929

Background:

Wexford Health Sources contracted with the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide inmate medical care.
Journalist Bruce Rushton requested all settlement agreements relating to the 2012 death of inmate Alfonso Franco; DOC produced only a redacted Wexford agreement after Wexford refused to provide the unredacted document.
Rushton and the Illinois Times sued the DOC for the unredacted agreement; Wexford intervened and the trial court ordered the unredacted agreement filed under seal but granted summary judgment to Wexford, finding the agreement was not a public record under FOIA.
The appellate court reversed, holding the agreement was a public record under FOIA § 7(2) because it directly related to a governmental function Wexford performed for DOC (provision of inmate medical care).
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: the settlement agreement, held by a contractor performing a governmental function, directly related to that function and therefore is a public record under FOIA § 7(2); the case was remanded to address claimed FOIA exemptions/redactions.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement agreement is a "settlement agreement" public record under FOIA §2.20	Rushton: settlement agreements involving public functions are public records; should be disclosed	Wexford: §2.20 mentions only agreements by or on behalf of a public body, so private contractor agreements are excluded	Court: §2.20 not dispositive; must read with §7(2); §2.20 does not exempt contractor-held settlements from disclosure
Whether a contractor's record is a public record under FOIA §7(2)	Rushton: §7(2) makes contractor records public when they directly relate to the governmental function contracted for	Wexford: §7(2)’s "directly relates" requires a heightened, document-level nexus; this settlement does not directly relate because it doesn’t describe medical care	Court: §7(2) applies; the settlement directly relates to Wexford’s provision of inmate medical care (it settled claims arising from that care) and is therefore a public record
Proper interpretive approach (four‑corners vs. contextual/fact‑specific)	Rushton: context and purpose of FOIA/control over privatization justify considering the underlying claim and function	Wexford: courts must apply a document‑by‑document, four‑corners inquiry and not rely on external allegations	Court: use a fact‑specific inquiry considering context and FOIA’s liberal construction; four‑corners alone can be insufficient
Whether public access interest requires disclosure when settlement paid with private funds	Rushton: public interest in transparency and accountability of governmental functions supports disclosure regardless of payer	Wexford: public‑funds rationale drives disclosure; private payment and private‑party settlement mean no public record	Court: disclosure requirement under §7(2) is not limited to documents paid with public funds; contractor records directly relating to governmental functions are public records even if privately funded

Key Cases Cited

Better Government Ass'n v. Illinois High School Ass'n, 2017 IL 121124 (section 7(2) prevents public bodies from avoiding FOIA by delegating governmental functions)
Lieber v. Bd. of Trustees of Southern Illinois Univ., 176 Ill. 2d 401 (FOIA and public records presumptively open; liberal construction)
Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C., 235 Ill. 2d 1 (use dictionary/plain meaning when statutory terms undefined)
Southern Illinoisian v. Illinois Dep't of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390 (FOIA exemptions construed narrowly)
Bowie v. Evanston Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 65, 128 Ill. 2d 373 (public policy supports transparency re: governmental action)
Gannon v. Bd. of Regents, 692 N.W.2d 31 (Iowa Supreme Court: contractor records relating to governmental functions are subject to disclosure)
East Stroudsburg Univ. Foundation v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 496 (Pa. Ct. explaining "directly relates" in contractor‑record context)