ILCS » Chapter 775 · Act 35
Illinois Compiled Statutes

775 ILCS 35/5 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(775 ILCS 35/5)
    Sec. 5. Definitions. In this Act:
    "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
    "Exercise of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
    "Government" includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the State of Illinois or a political subdivision of the State, including a home rule unit.
(Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2021 · leading case: Students & Parents for Privacy v. Sch. Dirs. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 211, 377 F. Supp. 3d 891 (E.D. Ill. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Students & Parents for Privacy v. Sch. Dirs. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 211, 377 F. Supp. 3d 891 (E.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 2× “The IRFRA, thus, explicitly places on the government the burden of establishing that a burden to religion both serves a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of compelling the interest, thereby giving government an affirmative defense.”
Students & Parents for Privacy v. United States Dep't of Educ. (N.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 2× “The IRFRA, thus, explicitly places on the government the burden of establishing that a burden to religion both serves a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of compelling the interest, thereby giving government an affirmative defense.”
Williams v. Chicago Pub. Schs. (N.D. Ill. 2021). “Both the University and the DLF argue that they are not subject to liability under the IRFRA because they are not "governments" and the plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege that they acted under color of law.”
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.