January 25, 2026

Edgar County Watchdogs v. Paris Union School District No. 95, 2025 IL App (5th) 240811-U
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District
December 19, 2025

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act’s (IL FOIA) presumption of openness is a cornerstone of government transparency, but public bodies frequently invoke exemptions to withhold information.

A recent appellate court decision in Edgar County Watchdogs v. Paris Union School District No. 95, 2025 IL App (5th) 240811-U, provides important guidance on when redactions to federal grand jury subpoenas are permissible under IL FOIA—particularly regarding names of public employees and officials. This ruling underscores the limited scope of privacy and law enforcement exemptions, while affirming the rights of requesters to attorney fees as prevailing parties.

Background and Facts

In June 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice served a federal grand jury subpoena on Paris Union School District No. 95, demanding records related to a federal investigation. This followed an audit by the Illinois State Board of Education revealing questionable expenditures of federal grant funds in 2021 and 2022.

The Edgar County Watchdogs, a non-profit organization of investigative reporters focused on local government accountability, submitted a FOIA request for all subpoenas and search warrants received by the district in the prior 60 days. The district responded with a heavily redacted copy of the subpoena, citing IL FOIA exemptions under sections 7(1)(a) (information prohibited by federal or state law) and 7(1)(c) (unwarranted invasion of personal privacy). The district also referenced federal law, including Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and relied on letters from an Assistant U.S. Attorney advising against disclosure.

The Watchdogs sued, alleging willful violation of FOIA and seeking the unredacted subpoena, civil penalties, and attorney fees. The district moved to dismiss under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asserting the redactions were justified. The Watchdogs cross-moved for partial summary judgment.

After an in camera review, the circuit court found no initial FOIA violation but ordered a revised version with limited redactions (names of individuals and columns 3 and 5 in paragraph 19 of the subpoena). It granted the district’s motion to dismiss, denied summary judgment to the Watchdogs, and deemed the district the prevailing party.

Appellate Court Analysis and Holding

On appeal, the Fifth District Appellate Court reversed and remanded. Presiding Justice Cates, with Justices Barberis and Boie concurring, held that the circuit court erred in permitting blanket redactions of names without determining if they pertained to public employees or officials and their public duties.

Key points from the opinion:

• Privacy Exemption (Section 7(1)(c)): The court emphasized that IL FOIA explicitly states disclosure of information bearing on the public duties of public employees and officials is not an invasion of personal privacy. Relying on Better Government Ass’n v. Blagojevich, 386 Ill. App. 3d 808 (2008), the court noted that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) does not prohibit a public body recipient from disclosing a subpoena under IL FOIA. The appellate court remanded for an additional in camera review to identify if redacted names involved public employees/officials and related to their duties, ordering release if so.
• Law Enforcement Exemptions (Section 7(1)(d)(i) and (vii)): These apply only to records that would interfere with proceedings or obstruct investigations conducted by the recipient public body, which must be a law enforcement or correctional agency. The school district was neither, nor was it cooperating in the investigation—it was the subject. The court rejected the district’s reliance on Kelly v. Village of Kenilworth, 2019 IL App (1st) 170780, as factually distinguishable.
• Federal FOIA Exemptions: The court clarified that federal FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552) applies only to federal agencies, not state public bodies like the district. Letters from the Assistant U.S. Attorney citing federal exemptions were not controlling under IL FOIA.
• Prevailing Party and Attorney Fees: Under IL FOIA section 11(i), the Watchdogs prevailed because the court order compelled additional disclosure, even if partial. The appellate court reversed the prevailing party finding and remanded for the Watchdogs to petition for reasonable attorney fees and costs, citing Uptown People’s Law Center v. Department of Corrections, 2014 IL App (1st) 130161.

The court noted that issues regarding already-released information were moot but addressed the exemptions for the remaining redactions.

Determination and Implications

This decision reinforces IL FOIA’s strong presumption in favor of disclosure (5 ILCS 140/1.2), placing the burden on public bodies to prove exemptions by clear and convincing evidence. Public bodies cannot use federal grand jury secrecy as a shield to redact information unrelated to grand jury proceedings themselves. Importantly, names of public employees in documents tied to their official duties must be released, promoting accountability in cases involving potential misuse of public funds.

For requesters, the ruling highlights the value of challenging redactions through litigation, as even partial success can yield attorney fees. Public bodies should conduct thorough in camera reviews before invoking privacy exemptions and avoid overreliance on non-binding federal advice.

The full PAC Opinion can be found here.

Home: FOIA.law