2024 IL 129471

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

(Docket No. 129471) 

THE ARLINGTON HEIGHTS POLICE PENSION FUND et al., Appellants, 

v. JAY ROBERT “J.B.” PRITZKER, Governor, et al., Appellees.

Opinion filed January 19, 2024.

CHIEF JUSTICE THEIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Justices Neville, Overstreet, Holder White, Cunningham, Rochford, and 

O’Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

OPINION

¶ 1 Plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants in the circuit court of Kane 

County seeking, inter alia, a finding that Public Act 101-610 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020)

(Act), which amended portions of the Illinois Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/1-101 et. 

seq. (West 2020)), violated article XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. 

Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5), commonly known as the pension protection clause, 
- 2 - 

and/or article I, section 15, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 15), 

commonly known as the takings clause. The circuit court granted summary 

judgment in favor of defendants. The appellate court affirmed. 2023 IL App (2d) 

220198, ¶ 20. For the following reasons, we also affirm. 

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On January 1, 2020, Public Act 101-610 became effective and amended, in 

pertinent part, portions of the pension code to consolidate all applicable local police 

and firefighter pension fund assets into two statewide pension investment funds, 

one for police and the other for firefighters. Pursuant to the Act, the local pension 

funds were required to transfer custody and investment responsibility for their fund 

assets to the respective statewide funds, which are now tasked with collectively 

investing and administering the pooled assets. The Act provided a transition period 

that ended on June 30, 2022, for the transfer of securities, assets, and the investment 

function from the local funds to the statewide investment funds. See 40 ILCS 

5/22B-120, 22C-120 (West 2020). 

¶ 4 Under the Act, each local fund retains a separate account in the respective 

statewide fund. Those assets are dedicated solely to paying benefits to the local 

fund’s members and to covering operating expenses. Id. §§ 1-109; 22B-118(c), (e); 

22C-118(c), (e). The Act specifies that the “operations and financial condition of 

each participating pension fund account shall not affect the account balance of any 

other participating pension fund.” Id. §§ 22B-118(c), 22C-118(c). The returns on 

the investments in the statewide funds are then “allocated and distributed pro rata

among each participating pension fund account in accordance with the value of the 

pension fund assets attributable to each fund.” Id. 

¶ 5 The purpose of the Act is “to streamline investments and eliminate unnecessary 

and redundant administrative costs, thereby ensuring more money is available to 

fund pension benefits for the beneficiaries of the transferor pension funds.” Id.

§§ 22B-114, 22C-114. The two investment fund boards created by the Act are 

composed of nine members: three officers or executives from participating 

municipalities, three active participants of the local funds who are elected by active 
- 3 - 

participants, two beneficiaries 1 from the local funds who are elected by 

beneficiaries of the funds, and one member recommended by the Illinois Municipal 

League who is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. Id. §§ 22B115(b), 22C-115(b). In addition, the Act authorizes the Illinois Finance Authority 

(IFA) to lend money, if requested by the local funds, to pay the necessary transition 

costs to the new statewide funds. Id. §§ 22B-120(h), 23C-120(h). Any such loans 

are to be repaid with interest. Id.

¶ 6 There are approximately 650 local police and firefighter pension funds for 

municipalities in Illinois with populations between 5000 and 500,000, and the Act 

does not eliminate any of them. See id. §§ 3-103, 4-103. These local funds continue 

to be governed by five-member boards composed of two appointed members, two 

members elected by active members, and one member elected by and from the 

beneficiaries. Id. §§ 3-128, 4-121. The Act specifically provides that these local 

boards retain exclusive authority to adjudicate and award retirement and other 

benefits. The new statewide investment funds “shall not have the authority to 

control, alter, or modify, or the ability to review or intervene in, the proceedings or 

decisions” of the local pension boards. Id. §§ 3-124.3, 4-117.2. Therefore, the 

enactment of the Act had no impact on the local pension boards’ responsibility to 

determine the retirement, disability, and death benefits payable to fund members 

and other beneficiaries. 

¶ 7 In February 2021, plaintiffs, 36 individual active and retired beneficiary 

members from a small number of suburban and downstate police and firefighter 

pension funds, filed a three-count complaint against Governor Jay Robert “J.B.” 

Pritzker; Christopher Meister, executive director of the IFA; Dana Severinghaus, 

acting director of the Illinois Department of Insurance; the Board of Trustees for 

the Police Officers’ Pension Investment Fund; and the Board of Trustees for the 

Firefighters’ Pension Investment Fund. Plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive, 

and other relief, including a finding that the Act violated the pension protection 

clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5) (count I) and/or 

1The fund board for local police has two members directly from the population of beneficiaries; 

the fund board for firefighters has one beneficiary member and one member recommended by the 

statewide labor organization representing firefighters from at least 85 municipalities, who is then 

appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. See id. § 22C-115(b)(3), (5).
- 4 - 

the Illinois Constitution’s contracts clause (id. art. I, § 16) (count II) and/or the 

Illinois Constitution’s takings clause (id. § 15) (count III).2 

¶ 8 Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the Act diminishes and impairs their pension 

benefits because, (1) prior to the Act, the local funds could “exclusively manage 

and control their investment expenditures and income”; (2) their “voting power and 

thereby an effective say in the selection of investment managers, investments, risks, 

rates of return, costs and expenses” was diluted by the participation of members of 

other local funds; and (3) the local funds must bear the costs associated with the 

Act’s transition process, including repayment of any IFA transition loans. 

¶ 9 On cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court entered judgment in 

favor of defendants and against plaintiffs.3 As to count I, the circuit court found 

that precedent from this court instructs that the “benefits” protected by the pension 

protection clause are limited to those that affect the value of a member’s pension 

benefit. The circuit court found the Act did not violate the clause because plaintiffs 

were not denied a “benefit” that could be tied to a change in the value of their 

retirement payments. As to count III, plaintiffs’ takings clause claim, the circuit 

court found that, because the clause applies only to government action against real 

property, which is not at issue here, the Act did not implicate that constitutional 

provision. 

¶ 10 On appeal, plaintiffs only challenged the circuit court’s ruling as to counts I and 

III of the complaint. 2023 IL App (2d) 220198, ¶ 5. Concerning count I, the 

appellate court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that voting rights are protected 

benefits under the pension protection clause. Id. ¶ 14. The court found that benefits 

outside of pension payments that have been held to constitute benefits for purposes 

of the clause are generally only those that affect a participant’s continued 

participation in a pension system or their ability to increase their service credits, 

thereby affecting the calculation of eventual benefit payments. Id. ¶ 12. The 

2The complaint also named as plaintiffs 18 local police or firefighter pension funds. The circuit 

court dismissed these plaintiffs for lack of standing. This ruling was not challenged in the appellate 

court, nor is it raised in this court. 

3 Prior to the filing of plaintiffs’ countermotion for summary judgment, the circuit court 

dismissed count II of the complaint after finding that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under 

the contracts clause. 
- 5 - 

appellate court concluded that the ability to vote in elections for local pension board 

members is not such a benefit, nor is the ability to have local board members control 

and invest pension funds. Id. ¶ 14. 

¶ 11 The appellate court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the Act impairs and 

diminishes their benefits by requiring local funds to pay startup and administrative 

costs, as well as transition costs, for the new statewide pension investment funds. 

Id. ¶ 15. The court found that plaintiffs failed to explain how such costs impair or 

diminish payment of their benefits. Id. Additionally, the court noted that the Act 

does not require the local funds to borrow money to pay for the costs or for them to 

spend any specific amount. Id. 

¶ 12 As to count III, the appellate court held that, because plaintiffs have no property 

right in any particular assets or level of funding and are entitled only to present or 

future payments from the funds, they could not establish the private property 

requirement for their takings clause claim. Id. ¶ 18. The court concluded that 

plaintiffs do not own the funds that are to be transferred to the new statewide funds. 

Id. 

¶ 13 For these reasons, the appellate court held that the circuit court correctly ruled 

that summary judgment in defendants’ favor was appropriate on counts I and III of 

the complaint. Id. ¶ 20. 

¶ 14 This court granted plaintiffs’ petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a) 

(eff. Oct. 1, 2021). This court also allowed the Illinois Municipal League and the 

Associated Firefighters of Illinois leave to file amicus curiae briefs in support of 

defendants’ position. Ill. S. Ct. R. 345(a) (eff. Sept. 20, 2010). 

¶ 15 ANALYSIS

¶ 16 We first address plaintiffs’ contention that the circuit court erred in granting 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the Act violates the pension 

protection clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5). 

Plaintiffs assert that the Act does not conform to the requirements of this clause 

because it impairs the rights of members to vote in the election of local police and 
- 6 - 

firefighter pension boards and to have those boards control and invest the local 

pension funds. 

¶ 17 Summary judgment is warranted where there is no genuine issue of material 

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-

1005(c) (West 2020). By filing cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties 

invite the court to decide the questions presented as a matter of law. Carmichael v. 

Laborers’ & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 

2018 IL 122793, ¶ 21. We apply a de novo standard of review to summary judgment 

rulings. Id.

¶ 18 I. Pension Protection Clause 

¶ 19 Article XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution provides that “[m]embership 

in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or 

school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable 

contractual relationship, the benefit of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” 

Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5. 

¶ 20 This clause of our constitution has been construed by this court on numerous 

occasions. We have repeatedly held that the pension protection clause means 

precisely what it says: “if something qualifies as a benefit of the enforceable 

contractual relationship resulting from membership in one of the State’s pension or 

retirement systems, it cannot be diminished or impaired.” Kanerva v. Weems, 2014 

IL 115811, ¶ 38; id. ¶ 40 (holding that subsidized health care provided to state 

employees was a benefit of membership in a state retirement system protected by 

the pension protection clause). The protections afforded to pension benefits by 

article XIII, section 5, attach once an individual first embarks upon employment in 

a position covered by a public retirement system, not when the employee ultimately 

retires. In re Pension Reform Litigation, 2015 IL 118585, ¶ 46. Those benefits 

therefore cannot be later unilaterally diminished or eliminated by the legislature. 

Id. ¶ 46 n.12. 

¶ 21 Accordingly, once an individual begins work and becomes a member of a public 

retirement system, any subsequent changes to the Pension Code that would 

diminish the benefits conferred by membership in the retirement system cannot be 
- 7 - 

applied to that individual. Id. ¶ 46. “The primary purpose of article XIII, section 5, 

was to eliminate any uncertainty surrounding the payment of public pension 

benefits and to clarify that state and local governments were obligated to provide 

pension benefits to their employees.” Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2016 

IL 117638, ¶ 57. 

¶ 22 This court has further explained that the pension protection clause “ ‘protects 

all of the benefits that flow from the contractual relationship arising from 

membership in a public retirement system.’ ” Williamson County Board of 

Commissioners v. Board of Trustees of the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 

2020 IL 125330, ¶ 32 (quoting Matthews, 2016 IL 117638, ¶ 54). The benefits 

protected include “those benefits attendant to membership in the State’s retirement 

system, such as subsidized health care, disability and life insurance coverage, and 

eligibility to receive a retirement annuity and survivor benefit [citations], along 

with the right to purchase optional service credit in the state pension system for past 

military service.” Carmichael, 2018 IL 122793, ¶ 25. 

¶ 23 Plaintiffs claim that the lower courts failed to appreciate this precedent and the 

breadth of the phrase “any benefit” contained in our pension protection clause. 

Plaintiffs argue that their voting rights are impacted by the Act and that voting 

rights are a benefit that cannot be altered. They assert that prior to the adoption of 

the Act they had the right to vote and exercise greater control over locally managed 

boards and pension funds. The Act, according to plaintiffs, “substantially impacted 

and diluted” their voting rights and their rights to control the management of the 

funds. Consequently, plaintiffs claim it was erroneous for the lower courts to find 

that these rights were not the kind of benefits protected by our constitution. 

¶ 24 In support of this argument, plaintiffs rely heavily upon Williamson County. 

There, the plaintiffs were elected members of the Williamson County Board of 

Commissioners and had satisfied the requirements of the Pension Code to 

participate in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF). Williamson County, 

2020 IL 125330, ¶ 5. The Pension Code was subsequently amended to add a 

requirement for a county board to adopt an IMRF participation resolution within 90 

days of each election when a member of the county board is elected or reelected. 

Id. ¶ 8. The Williamson County Board failed to adopt such a resolution within the 
- 8 - 

required time frame, and the plaintiffs’ participation in IMRF was terminated. Id.

¶ 12. 

¶ 25 This court found that the amendment to the Pension Code was unconstitutional 

because the legislature’s unilateral decision to create the provision contained in 

section 7-137.2(a) (40 ILCS 5/7-137.2(a) (West 2016)) imposed a new requirement 

for continued IMRF participation that did not exist when the plaintiffs began their 

public employment. Williamson County, 2020 IL 125330, ¶ 47. The defendants did 

not contest the plaintiffs’ assertion that they would qualify for continued 

participation in the fund but for the new requirement that all county boards certify 

within 90 days of each general election that their county board members are 

required to work sufficient hours to meet the applicable hourly standard. Id. 

¶ 26 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Williamson County is misplaced. There, the newly 

created requirement in the Pension Code could eliminate the monetary benefits of 

members and did not exist when the plaintiffs began their public employment and 

participation in IMRF. Therefore, in marked contrast to the instant case, the 

constitutional violation in the new legislation in Williamson County was 

specifically tied to its effect of eliminating monetary benefits for existing members.

¶ 27 Generally, as the appellate court below recognized, the benefits outside of 

pension payments that have been found to constitute benefits for purposes of the 

pension protection clause are those that affect a participant’s ability to continue 

participation or increase service credits, thereby negatively affecting calculation of 

eventual benefit payments. See, e.g., Carmichael, 2018 IL 122793, ¶ 65 (holding 

that amendment to the Pension Code that eliminated the ability of the plaintiffs to 

purchase service credit during a leave of absence to work for a local union was an 

improper new requirement placed on pension benefits); Buddell v. Board of 

Trustees, State University Retirement System, 118 Ill. 2d 99, 106-07 (1987) 

(holding that change to employees’ right to purchase optional service credit for time 

spent in military service was an improper new requirement placed on pension 

benefits). In Carmichael, we also listed, as examples of the benefits protected by 

the pension protection clause, “subsidized health care, disability and life insurance 

coverage, and eligibility to receive a retirement annuity and survivor benefits.” 

Carmichael, 2018 IL 122793, ¶ 25. 
- 9 - 

¶ 28 In contrast, the ability to vote in elections for local pension board members is 

not such a constitutionally protected benefit, nor is the ability to have local board 

members control and invest pension funds. See Kanerva, 2014 IL 115811, ¶ 48 

(holding that the pension protection clause was aimed at protecting the right to 

receive the promised retirement benefits, not the adequacy of the funding to pay for 

them); McNamee v. State, 173 Ill. 2d 433, 444 (1996) (holding that the pension 

protection clause does not create a contractual basis for participants to expect a 

particular level of funding but only a contractual right that they would receive the 

money due them at the time of their retirement). 

¶ 29 It is axiomatic that, if plaintiffs have no constitutional right in how their local 

pension funds are funded or the adequacy of that funding, they similarly have no 

constitutional right regarding who invests local fund assets. The Act does not 

change plaintiffs’ right to elect members of their local funds’ boards or the local 

boards’ authority to determine the amount of benefits plaintiffs are entitled to 

receive. It only changes the local boards’ power to invest the assets of the local 

funds. Simply put, the 2020 amendment to the Pension Code has no impact on 

plaintiffs receiving their promised monetary benefits. 

¶ 30 Plaintiffs further argue that the Act impairs and diminishes their benefits in 

violation of the pension protection clause by requiring local funds to pay start-up, 

administration, and operation costs for the new funds, plus interest if any amount 

is borrowed from the IFA. Plaintiffs argue that the appellate court ignored this 

concern by stating that the funds must already pay administration costs and that 

there is no evidence that the costs of the new funds would be any greater. Plaintiffs 

assert that these liabilities and encumbrances did not exist before the Act and 

constitute a further violation of the pension protection clause. 

¶ 31 This contention also lacks merit. Plaintiffs do not explain how the payment of 

the startup costs impairs or diminishes payment of their pension benefits. The Act 

does not require the borrowing or the spending of any specific amount for the 

startup or administrative costs of the funds. Additionally, as previously noted, the 

two new statewide funds are intended to streamline investments and eliminate 

unnecessary and redundant costs, thereby ensuring that more money is available to 

fund local police and firefighter pension benefits. See 40 ILCS 5/22B-114, 22C114 (West 2020). 
- 10 - 

¶ 32 For these reasons, we find the circuit court properly granted summary judgment 

in defendants’ favor on count I of the complaint. 

¶ 33 II. Takings Clause 

¶ 34 We next turn to plaintiffs’ claim that the circuit court erred in granting 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the Act violates the takings 

clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 15). Plaintiffs contend 

that, because the Act requires them “to fully transfer all of their private property, 

comprised of their securities, funds, assets, monies, and cash reserves” to the 

statewide pension investment funds, and because the Act requires them to bear the 

financial costs of transition, as well as to pay the costs and expenses incurred in the 

operation and administration of the funds, their private property has been taken 

and/or damaged in violation of the takings clause. 

¶ 35 Article I, section 15, of the Illinois Constitution provides that “[p]rivate 

property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation as 

provided by law. Such compensation shall be determined by a jury as provided by 

law.” Id. We have defined a taking as “a physical invasion of private property or 

the radical interference with a private property owner’s use and enjoyment of the 

property.” Tzakis v. Maine Township, 2020 IL 125017, ¶ 45. “One of the principal 

purposes of the Takings Clause is ‘to bar Government from forcing some people 

alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by 

the public as a whole.’ ” Northern Illinois Home Builders Ass’n v. County of 

Du Page, 165 Ill. 2d 25, 31-32 (1995) (quoting Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 

374, 384 (1994)). 

¶ 36 As the appellate court correctly concluded, the Act does not take any of 

plaintiffs’ private property. As participants in a defined benefit plan, they have a 

right to receive their promised benefits but do not somehow have a private property 

right in the source of funding for those payments. Plaintiffs claim that the Act 

requires them to fully transfer ownership of their private property, comprising the 

securities and other fund assets. The Act does not operate in that manner. It simply 

changes the control and management of the local funds’ assets from one 

government-created pension fund to another type of government-created pension 

fund. As defendants assert, although plaintiffs have a constitutional right to receive 
- 11 - 

the benefit payments promised to them, which the Act does not change, they do not 

have a property right to any particular level of assets used to pay those benefits or 

in the way those assets are held or invested. 

¶ 37 Plaintiffs have failed to identify any property right under Illinois law that is 

affected by the 2020 amendment to the Pension Code. It is undisputed that the Act 

does not impact the pension payments that plaintiffs are entitled to receive. 

Additionally, as defendants recognize, plaintiffs’ takings claim must also fail 

because even if they had a property right in the local funds’ assets, which they do 

not, the Act would not constitute a taking of that property for the government’s use. 

The Act simply changes how local fund assets are managed and invested without 

affecting the ultimate use of those assets to pay the benefits of local fund members. 

¶ 38 Consequently, the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in 

defendants’ favor on count III of the complaint. 

¶ 39 CONCLUSION

¶ 40 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court 

affirming the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in defendants’ favor 

and against plaintiffs. 

¶ 41 Judgments affirmed.