sovereign immunity in Illinois

2022However, the Illinois Supreme Court abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity in 1959 (Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302, 18 Ill. 2d 11 (1959)).

2022However, the Illinois Supreme Court abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity in 1959 (Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302, 18 Ill. 2d 11 (1959)).

2022The doctrine of sovereign immunity “affords no protection, however, when it is alleged that the State’s agent acted in violation of statutory or constitutional law or in excess of his authority, and in those instances an action may be brought in circuit court.” Healy v. Vaupel, 133 Ill. 2d 295, 308 (1990).

2022“Sovereign immunity affords no protection *** when it is alleged that the State’s agent acted in violation of statutory or constitutional law or in excess of his authority, and in those instances an action may be brought in circuit court.” Healy v. Vaupel, 133 Ill. 2d 295, 308 (1990). “[A]n action to compel a public official to perform a clear and mandatory duty is not a suit against the State.” John M.

2025The Rationale of the Exception ¶ 27 The prospective injunctive relief exception has a “long and complex history” and is founded on the principle that, “ ‘[w]here the defendant officer act[s] in excess of his statutory authority, the rights of the plaintiffs to be free from the consequences of his action outweigh the interest of the State which is served by the sovereign immunity doctrine.’ ” PHL, Inc., 216 Ill. 2d at 261 -62 (quoting Senn Park Nursing Center v. Miller, 104 Ill. 2d 169, 188 (1984)). ¶ 28 In Walker v. Chasteen, 2025 IL 130288, ¶ 21 , we suggested that cases involving the prospec

2015Senn Park Nursing Center v. Miller, 104 Ill. 2d 169, 188 (1984) (“[W]here the defendant officer act[s] in excess of his statutory authority, the rights of the plaintiffs to be free from the consequences of his action outweigh the interest of the State which is served by the sovereign immunity doctrine.”); Moline Tool Co., 410 Ill. at 37 (not all suits against state officers are barred because “[s]uch a holding would have blunted the effectiveness of many constitutional guaranties by preventing their judicial enforcement”). ¶ 112 Because the officer suit exception is limited to prospective reli

2025IDOT contended that, pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, “the State of Illinois shall not be made a defendant or party in any court,” and that tort actions for money damages against state agencies are not properly brought in the circuit court. ¶ 16 IDOT further contended that the claims against Petrolis were also barred by sovereign immunity, because Longo’s allegations established that she was acting within the scope of her employment as a state employee, any duty she was alleged to have breached stemmed from that employment, and her performance as an AAG was “clearly an official

2025IDOT contended that, pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, “the State of Illinois shall not be made a defendant or party in any court,” and that tort actions for money damages against state agencies are not properly brought in the circuit court. ¶ 16 IDOT further contended that the claims against Petrolis were also barred by sovereign immunity, because Longo’s allegations established that she was acting within the scope of her employment as a state employee, any duty she was alleged to have breached stemmed from that employment, and her performance as an AAG was “clearly an official

2023Co., 106 Ill. 2d 135, 142 (1985). ¶ 21 “Sovereign immunity is a common-law doctrine that bars lawsuits against the government unless the government consents to be sued.” Jackson v. Alverez, 358 Ill.

2021Defendants additionally cited the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 59, 71 (1989), for the proposition that neither a state, nor its officials acting in their official capacities, are “persons” who can be sued under section 1983. ¶ 42 “Sovereign immunity is a common-law doctrine that bars lawsuits against the government unless the government consents to be sued.” Jackson v. Alverez, 358 Ill.

2025Id. at 395 . ¶ 40 In a related argument, plaintiffs assert the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve “all aspects of litigation which address the constitutionality of legislation, including ordering a complete and effective remedy.” However, the sovereign immunity doctrine is intended to protect the State from interference in its performance of government functions and preserve its control over State coffers, and ordering the circuit court to adjudicate a present claim to redress a past wrong undermines that goal.

1997In discussing the limits of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, our supreme court has stated: "[I]f a plaintiff is not attempting to enforce a present claim against the State, but rather seeks to enjoin a State officer from taking future actions in excess of his delegated authority, then the immunity prohibition does not pertain.” Ellis v. Board of Governors of State Colleges & Universities, 102 Ill. 2d 387, 395 (1984).

2015Senn Park Nursing Center v. Miller, 104 Ill. 2d 169, 188 (1984) (“[W]here the defendant officer act[s] in excess of his statutory authority, the rights of the plaintiffs to be free from the consequences of his action outweigh the interest of the State which is served by the sovereign immunity doctrine.”); Moline Tool Co., 410 Ill. at 37 (not all suits against state officers are barred because “[s]uch a holding would have blunted the effectiveness of many constitutional guaranties by preventing their judicial enforcement”). ¶ 112 Because the officer suit exception is limited to prospective reli

2015Senn Park Nursing Center v. Miller, 104 Ill. 2d 169, 188 (1984) (“[W]here the defendant officer act[s] in excess of his statutory authority, the rights of the plaintiffs to be free from the consequences of his action outweigh the interest of the State which is served by the sovereign immunity doctrine.”); Moline Tool Co., 410 Ill. at 37 (not all suits against state officers are barred because “[s]uch a holding would have blunted the effectiveness of many constitutional guaranties by preventing their judicial enforcement”). ¶ 112 Because the officer suit exception is limited to prospective reli

2016Groves & Sons Co. v. State, 93 Ill. 2d 397, 401 (1982). ¶ 38 With this in mind, the State cannot justifiably claim interference with its functions when the conduct complained of is unauthorized or illegal.

2016Groves & Sons Co. v. State, 93 Ill. 2d 397, 401 (1982). ¶ 38 With this in mind, the state cannot justifiably claim interference with its functions when the conduct complained of is unauthorized or illegal.

2017“Based on the clear directives of these statutes, there is no dispute that claims against the state founded on a contract must be filed in the Court of Claims.” State Building Venture v. O’Donnell, 239 Ill. 2d 151, 161 (2010). ¶ 30 Sovereign immunity aims to “protect[ ] the State from interference in its performance of the functions of government and preserve[ ] its control over State coffers.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 47 . ¶ 31 On appeal, plaintiffs contend that sovereign immunity does not preclude their claims because the Governor exceeded the powers of

2017“Based on the clear directives of these statutes, there is no dispute that claims against the state founded on a contract must be filed in the Court of Claims.” State Building Venture v. O’Donnell, 239 Ill. 2d 151, 161 (2010). ¶ 30 Sovereign immunity aims to “protect[ ] the State from interference in its performance of the functions of government and preserve[ ] its control over State coffers.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 47 . ¶ 31 On appeal, plaintiffs contend that sovereign immunity does not preclude their claims because the Governor exceeded the powers of

2023Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485 , ¶ 41. ¶ 18 Sovereign immunity is a common law doctrine that protects the government from being sued without its consent.

2022Parmar v. Madigan, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 17 ; Leetaru v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 41 . ¶ 15 The doctrine of sovereign immunity formed the basis for the circuit court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over the complaint.

2025The Rationale of the Exception ¶ 27 The prospective injunctive relief exception has a “long and complex history” and is founded on the principle that, “ ‘[w]here the defendant officer act[s] in excess of his statutory authority, the rights of the plaintiffs to be free from the consequences of his action outweigh the interest of the State which is served by the sovereign immunity doctrine.’ ” PHL, Inc., 216 Ill. 2d at 261 -62 (quoting Senn Park Nursing Center v. Miller, 104 Ill. 2d 169, 188 (1984)). ¶ 28 In Walker v. Chasteen, 2025 IL 130288, ¶ 21 , we suggested that cases involving the prospec

2024For the reasons that follow, we agree with defendants. ¶ 47 “The Illinois Constitution of 1970 abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity ‘[e]xcept as the General Assembly may provide by law.’ ” PHL, Inc. v. Pullman Bank & Trust Co., 216 Ill. 2d 250, 259-60 , 836 N.E.2d 351, 356 (2005) (quoting Ill.

2014Thus, the State is not liable to pay any portion of any judgment against the Fund, even when there are insufficient monies in the Fund to satisfy the judgments entered against it. 4 ¶ 16 The claimant also argues that section 19(f)(1) bars judicial review in this case because one of the purposes of the doctrine of sovereign immunity is “to preserve and protect State funds” (citing People ex rel Manning v. Nickerson, 184 Ill. 2d 245, 248 (1998)), and the moneys in the Fund are “state funds.” In support of this argument, the claimant notes that section 4(d) of the Act provides that the Fund “shal

2013Thus, the State is not liable to pay any portion of any judgment against the Fund, even when there are insufficient monies in the Fund to satisfy the judgments entered against it.4 ¶ 16 The claimant also argues that section 19(f)(1) bars judicial review in this case because one of the purposes of the doctrine of sovereign immunity is "to preserve and protect State funds" (citing People ex rel Manning v. Nickerson, 184 Ill. 2d 245, 248 (1998)), and the moneys in the Fund are "state funds." In support of this argument, the claimant notes that section 4(d) of the Act provides that the Fund "shall

2022The State’s consent to be sued must be “clear and 6 1-21-1091 unequivocal.” In re Special Education of Walker, 131 Ill. 2d 300, 303 (1989) (quoting Martin v. Giordano, 115 Ill.

2013In re Special Education of Walker, 131 Ill. 2d 300, 304 (1989); Department of Revenue v. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, 67 Ill. 2d 392, 396 (1977). ¶ 20 Sovereign immunity “protects the State from interference in its performance of the functions of government and preserves its control over State coffers.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State Building Venture v. O’Donnell, 239 Ill. 2d 151, 159 (2010).

2010This court held that sovereign immunity did not bar the action because the corporation was not “attempting to enforce a present claim against the State but, rather, seeks to enjoin the defendant from taking actions in excess of his delegated authority and in violation of plaintiff’s protectable legal interests.” Bio-Medical Laboratories, 68 Ill. 2d at 548 .

2010This court held that sovereign immunity did not bar the action because the corporation was not “attempting to enforce a present claim against the State but, rather, seeks to enjoin the defendant from taking actions in excess of his delegated authority and in violation of plaintiffs protect-able legal interests.” Bio-Medical Laboratories, 68 Ill. 2d at 548 .

2025Sovereign immunity generally prohibits the State of Illinois from being “made a defendant or party in any court.” 745 ILCS 5/1 (West 2022); see Parmar v. Madigan, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 19 , 106 N.E.3d 1004 (“[T]he General Assembly adopted the State -5- Lawsuit Immunity Act, reinstituting the doctrine of sovereign immunity.”).

2025Sovereign immunity generally prohibits the State of Illinois from being “made a defendant or party in any court.” 745 ILCS 5/1 (West 2022); see Parmar v. Madigan, 2018 IL 122265, ¶ 19 , 106 N.E.3d 1004 (“[T]he General Assembly adopted the State -5- Lawsuit Immunity Act, reinstituting the doctrine of sovereign immunity.”).

2002Racich v. Anderson, 241 Ill.App.3d 336, 339-40 , 181 Ill.Dec. 721 , 608 N.E.2d 972, 974 (1993) (whether defendant would be entitled to invoke a sovereign immunity defense is a separate question).

2002App. 3d 336, 339-40 , 608 N.E.2d 972, 974 (1993) (whether defendant would be entitled to invoke a sovereign immunity defense is a separate question).

2012DeSmet v. County of Rock Island, 219 Ill. 2d 497, 505 (2006).

2012DeSmet v. County of Rock Island, 219 Ill. 2d 497, 505 (2006).

2015The doctrine of sovereign immunity “affords no protection, however, when it is alleged that the State’s agent acted in violation of statutory or constitutional law or in excess of his authority, and in those instances an action may be brought in circuit court.” Id. (and cases cited therein).

2015The doctrine of sovereign immunity “affords no protection, however, when it is alleged that the State’s agent acted in violation of statutory or constitutional law or in excess of his authority, and in those instances an action may be brought in circuit court.” Id. (and cases cited therein).

1998Lawrence M., 172 Ill. 2d at 527 .

1998Lawrence M. , 172 Ill. 2d at 527 .

2015Officer Suit Exception to Sovereign Immunity ¶ 23 Assuming, arguendo, that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the award of attorney fees and costs against the State, we agree with the circuit court that the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs was proper since the officer suit exception to sovereign immunity applied in this case. ¶ 24 “[T]he determination of whether a suit is against the State is dependent on the issues involved and the relief sought rather than by the formal identification of the parties.” Herget -5- National Bank of Pekin v. Kenney, 105 Ill. 2d 405, 408

2015Officer Suit Exception to Sovereign Immunity 8 No. 1-13-0267 ¶ 23 Assuming, arguendo, that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the award of attorney fees and costs against the State, we agree with the circuit court that the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs was proper since the officer suit exception to sovereign immunity applied in this case. ¶ 24 "[T]he determination of whether a suit is against the State is dependent on the issues involved and the relief sought rather than by the formal identification of the parties." Herget National Bank of Pekin v. Kenney, 105 Ill.

2012App. 3d 751, 756-57 (1995). “[I]n determining whether sovereign immunity applies to a particular case, substance takes precedent over form.” Id. at 757 . ¶ 28 Sovereign immunity exists only if the defendant is an arm of the State, the plaintiff’s action constitutes a present claim that could subject the State to liability and no exception exists.

2002App. 3d 751 , 755 (1995), the court labeled this exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity the “prospective injunctive relief exception” and stated that it applies “where a plaintiff seeks to enjoin a State agency or official from taking actions in excess of his statutory or constitutional authority.” Rockford Memorial Hospital, 272 Ill.

2015Officer Suit Exception to Sovereign Immunity 8 No. 1-13-0267 ¶ 23 Assuming, arguendo, that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the award of attorney fees and costs against the State, we agree with the circuit court that the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs was proper since the officer suit exception to sovereign immunity applied in this case. ¶ 24 "[T]he determination of whether a suit is against the State is dependent on the issues involved and the relief sought rather than by the formal identification of the parties." Herget National Bank of Pekin v. Kenney, 105 Ill.

2015Officer Suit Exception to Sovereign Immunity 8 No. 1-13-0267 ¶ 23 Assuming, arguendo, that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the award of attorney fees and costs against the State, we agree with the circuit court that the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs was proper since the officer suit exception to sovereign immunity applied in this case. ¶ 24 "[T]he determination of whether a suit is against the State is dependent on the issues involved and the relief sought rather than by the formal identification of the parties." Herget National Bank of Pekin v. Kenney, 105 Ill.