1. What must a requester show for a civil penalty under section 11(j)?
Active disagreementAppellate courtsSection 11
The statute says:
If the court determines that a public body willfully and intentionally failed to comply with this Act, or otherwise acted in bad faith, the court shall also impose upon the public body a civil penalty of not less than $2,500 nor more than $5,000 for each occurrence.
The question is what "or otherwise acted in bad faith" adds. One line of cases requires a requester to show a willful and intentional violation and bad faith, defined as a dishonest purpose. A second line, all from the First District in 2026, reads the phrase as a catchall that includes willful and intentional noncompliance, so that such a violation can be enough by itself.
The Williams line (requires a dishonest purpose)
| Decision | Court and date | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| Williams v. Bruscato 2021 IL App (2d) 190971 | 2nd Dist. July 21, 2021 | Held that "where a public body willfully, intentionally, and in bad faith failed to comply with the FOIA, the court shall impose a civil penalty" (¶ 14), and that the body "not only must have intentionally failed to comply with the FOIA but must have done so deliberately, by design, and with a dishonest purpose" (¶ 15). Affirmed the denial of penalties. |
| John Kraft and Edgar County Watchdogs, Inc. v. City of Kankakee 2022 IL App (3d) 210270-U | 3rd Dist. June 7, 2022 Rule 23 order | Listed in Lucy Parsons Labs ¶ 40 among later decisions that adopted the Williams standard in denying civil penalties. |
| Edgar County Watchdogs v. Joliet Township 2023 IL App (3d) 210520 | 3rd Dist. February 23, 2023 | Listed in Lucy Parsons Labs ¶ 40 among later decisions that adopted the Williams standard in denying civil penalties. NBC ¶ 29 also cites it ("See also"). |
| Thomas v. County of Cook 2023 IL App (1st) 211656 | 1st Dist. October 10, 2023 | Described in NBC ¶ 29: relied on Williams’s reading of section 11(j) and found the record did not support the claim that the County’s objection to releasing the records was motivated by bad faith. NBC ¶ 37 declines to follow it. |
| Nathanael Harsy v. Perry County Sheriff’s Office 2024 IL App (5th) 180483-U | 5th Dist. June 3, 2024 Rule 23 order | Listed in Lucy Parsons Labs ¶ 40 among later decisions that adopted the Williams standard in denying civil penalties. |
The 2026 First District decisions (willful and intentional can be enough)
| Decision | Court and date | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| Tobias v. City of Chicago Office of the Mayor 2026 IL App (1st) 241435-U | 1st Dist. March 2, 2026 Rule 23 order | Wrote that "to warrant civil penalties, the City’s failure to comply with FOIA had to be done deliberately and by intention/design or the City had to in some different way act dishonestly or fail to fulfill its statutory duty" (¶ 49), and cited Williams and Thomas with "But see," describing Williams as declining to honor the disjunctive "or" (¶ 49). |
| Lucy Parsons Labs v. The Chicago Police Department 2026 IL App (1st) 250205 | 1st Dist. June 30, 2026 Opinion, no Rule 23 notice in the text | Adopted the Tobias formulation (¶ 40). Reasoned that "or otherwise acted in bad faith" is a catchall and that Williams "eliminat[ed] the possibility that a ‘willful and intentional’ violation of FOIA could in and of itself warrant civil penalties" (¶ 37). Reversed the denial of penalties and remanded (¶ 55). Rejected the application of Thomas, citing factual distinctions and its "general disagreement with the version of the section 11(j) standard adopted from Williams" (¶ 45). |
| NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. Chicago Police Department 2026 IL App (1st) 250575-U | 1st Dist. September 9, 2026 Rule 23 order | Held that section 11(j) "does not require separate showings" of a willful and intentional violation and of bad faith or dishonest purpose, and wrote "we decline to follow Williams or Thomas" (¶ 37). Held a finding that the violation was "deliberate and by design" sufficient for penalties (¶ 41); reversed and remanded (¶ 43). |
Rule 23 status
Tobias v. City of Chicago Office of the Mayor, 2026 IL App (1st) 241435-U carries this notice: "This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1)." NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. Chicago Police Department, 2026 IL App (1st) 250575-U carries this notice: "This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1)."
Lucy Parsons Labs, in adopting the Tobias formulation, cited Rule 23(e)(1) as allowing a nonprecedential order entered on or after January 1, 2021 to be "cited for persuasive purposes" (¶ 40).
An earlier decision cited in Lucy Parsons Labs and NBC
Rock River Times v. Rockford Public School District 205, 2012 IL App (2d) 110879,as quoted in NBC ¶ 36, did not use the conjunctive "and" in stating the standard: "[o]nce the trial court finds a willful and intentional failure to comply with the FOIA, or that the party acted in bad faith, it is required to, i.e., 'shall,' impose a penalty."
Where it stands
- Williams is a Second District decision from 2021. Thomas (First District, 2023) followed it. Tobias cites Williams and Thomas with "But see" (¶ 49), and Lucy Parsons Labs rejects the application of Thomas (¶ 45). Only NBC says it declines to follow Williams and Thomas (¶ 37). The wording that Williams "failed to honor the disjunctive 'or'" is NBC's; it cites Tobias ¶ 49 and Lucy Parsons Labs ¶ 37 for the point.
- Lucy Parsons Labs acknowledges that Williams "has been adopted in subsequent appellate court decisions denying plaintiffs' requests for civil penalties" (¶ 40) and lists Kraft (Third District) Rule 23 order, Edgar County Watchdogs (Third District), Thomas (First District) and Harsy (Fifth District) Rule 23 order.
- NBC rejected the argument that Lacey v. Village of Palatine supports Williams (¶¶ 38 and 39) and the argument that the rule of lenity should limit section 11(j) (¶ 40).
- The texts reviewed for this entry do not say whether the Illinois Supreme Court or a later court has addressed the question. Check before citing any of them.
More on penalties, fees and the two ways to challenge a denial:going to court under FOIA.
Note on the Williams citation: the NBC order cites Williams once as "2021 IL App (2d) 190791" (¶ 2) and elsewhere as "2021 IL App (2d) 190971." The opinion itself is 2021 IL App (2d) 190971.