ILCS » Chapter 820 · Act 320
Illinois Compiled Statutes

820 ILCS 320/20 (2026)

Home rule

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(820 ILCS 320/20)
    Sec. 20. Home rule. An employer, including a home rule unit, that employs a full-time law enforcement, correctional or correctional probation officer, or firefighter may not provide benefits to persons covered under this Act in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act. This Act is a limitation under subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution on the concurrent exercise of powers and functions exercised by the State.
(Source: P.A. 90-535, eff. 11-14-97.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2009–2022 · leading case: Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 50 v. City of Peoria, 2022 IL 127040 (Ill. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 50 v. City of Peoria, 2022 IL 127040 (Ill. 2022). · cites it 3× “) 820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2018). Thus, it is not our case law that preempts the City’s definitions but the Act itself.”
Gaffney v. Orland Fire Prot., 921 N.E.2d 778 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 6× “Plaintiff appeals, arguing that (1) the District's consideration of plaintiff's request for payment of his health insurance premiums pursuant to section 10 violated the terms of section 20 of the Act (820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2006)), which does not permit a home rule unit to…”
Pederson v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 2014 IL App (1st) 123402 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “-5- (820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2004)), article VI, section 9, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill.”
Marquardt v. City of Des Plaines, 2018 IL App (1st) 163186 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2010) (home rule municipality that "employs a full-time law enforcement, correctional or correctional probation officer, or firefighter may not provide benefits to persons covered under this Act in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act").…”
Marquardt v. City of Des Plaines, 2018 IL App (1st) 163186 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2010) (home rule municipality that “employs a full-time law enforcement, correctional or correctional probation officer, or firefighter may not provide benefits to persons covered under this Act in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of this Act”).”
Esser v. City of Peoria, 2019 IL App (3d) 180702 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “City of Charleston, 2017 IL App (4th) 160747 , ¶ 68 (stating the legal principle as to non-home-rule units); see also 820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2014) (stating that an employer, including a home-rule 1 Although we may consider the dictionary definition of statutory terms in deciding…”
Englum v. City of Charleston, 2017 IL App (4th) 160747 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2012). Section 20 expressly limited the authority of home-rule units to act inconsistently with the provisions of the Safety Benefits Act.”
Englum v. The City of Charleston, 2017 IL App (4th) 160747 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “” 820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2012). Section 20 expressly limited the authority of home-rule units to act inconsistently with the provi- sions of the Safety Benefits Act.”
Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 50 v. City of Peoria, 2021 IL App (3d) 190758 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “However, as specifically provided in section 20 of the Act, “[a]n employer, including a home rule unit, that employs a full-time law enforcement, correctional or correctional probation officer, or firefighter may not provide benefits to persons covered under this Act in a manner…”
Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 50 v. City of Peoria, 2021 IL App (3d) 190758 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “However, as specifically provided in section 20 of the Act, “[a]n employer, including a home rule unit, that employs a full-time law enforcement, correctional or correctional probation officer, or firefighter may not provide benefits to persons covered under this Act in a manner…”
Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 50 v. City of Peoria, 2021 IL 127040 (Ill. 2022). · cites it 3× “) 820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2018). Thus, it is not our case law that preempts the City’s definitions but the Act itself.”
Gaffney v. Bd. of Trs. of the Orland Fire Prot. Dist. (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff appeals, arguing that (1) the District’s consideration of plaintiff’s request for payment of his health insurance premiums pursuant to section 10 violated the terms of section 20 1-09-0046 of the Act (820 ILCS 320/20 (West 2006)), which does not permit a home rule unit…”
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.