ILCS » Chapter 225 · Act 109
Illinois Compiled Statutes

225 ILCS 109/40 (2026)

Application; exemptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(225 ILCS 109/40)
    Sec. 40. Application; exemptions.
    (a) No person may act as a sex offender evaluator, sex offender treatment provider, or associate sex offender provider as defined in this Act for the provision of sex offender evaluations or sex offender treatment pursuant to the Sex Offender Management Board Act, the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, or the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act unless the person is licensed to do so by the Department. Any evaluation or treatment services provided by a licensed health care professional not licensed under this Act shall not be valid under the Sex Offender Management Board Act, the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, or the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. No business shall provide, attempt to provide, or offer to provide sex offender evaluation services unless it is organized under the Professional Service Corporation Act, the Medical Corporation Act, or the Professional Limited Liability Company Act.
    (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any licensed physician, advanced practice registered nurse, physician assistant, or other health care professional to be licensed under this Act for the provision of services for which the person is otherwise licensed. This Act does not prohibit a person licensed under any other Act in this State from engaging in the practice for which he or she is licensed. This Act only applies to the provision of sex offender evaluations or sex offender treatment provided for the purposes of complying with the Sex Offender Management Board Act, the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, or the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act.
(Source: P.A. 99-227, eff. 8-3-15; 100-513, eff. 1-1-18.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2016–2016 · leading case: Michael Hughes v. James Dimas, 837 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michael Hughes v. James Dimas, 837 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “The district judge dismissed Hughes’ complaint primarily on the grounds that, the Constitution doesn’t require Rushville to comply with state statutes and that anyway a state statute is not enforceable in federal court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.