Laura M. Julien, Mickey, Wilson, Weiler, Renzi, Lenert & Julien, P.C.
630-801-9699 Ext. 102 | Email Laura M. Julien
Home Rule Holds: Chicago May Adjudicate and Fine Overweight Vehicle Violations
On March 20, 2023, plaintiff Daniel Solano, a commercial truck driver, was issued a citation by the defendant, the City of Chicago. Solano v. City of Chicago, 2026 IL App (1st) 242135, ¶2. The citation alleged that the plaintiff’s tractor-trailer exceeded the applicable weight limit established under the defendant’s municipal code. Id. The citation imposed a fine of $2,655 and advised the plaintiff that he could contest the citation by requesting an administrative hearing before the defendant’s Department of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). Id.
The plaintiff timely requested an administrative hearing before DOAH and concurrently filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County challenging DOAH’s authority to adjudicate the alleged weight violation. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶3. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted that the Illinois Municipal Code did not authorize the defendant to adjudicate overweight vehicle violations through its administrative hearing process. Id. The plaintiff also alleged that the Illinois Vehicle Code, 625 ILCS 5/1-100, et seq., prohibited the defendant from imposing fines in excess of $250 for overweight vehicle violations. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶3.
While the circuit court action was pending, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision in Cammacho v. City of Joliet, 2024 IL 129263, 240 N.E.3d 1137, 476 Ill.Dec. 525. In light of that decision, the plaintiff withdrew Counts I and II, which challenged the defendant’s authority under the Illinois Municipal Code. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶4.
Circuit Court
In his amended complaint, the plaintiff sought a “declaration that all provisions of the [the defendant’s municipal code] that enabled the collection of fines, penalties and other amounts in excess of $250 for violation of ordinances governing operation of vehicles through administrative adjudication [we]re void for exceeding what [wa]s permissible under the Vehicle Code.” 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶5. The plaintiff also asserted a claim for unjust enrichment, alleging that the defendant unlawfully retained fines that exceeded the amount legally authorized under the Vehicle Code. The plaintiff asserted these claims both individually and on behalf of a putative class of individuals who were fined more than $250 for weight violations adjudicated through DOAH. Id.
The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were not ripe because DOAH had not yet entered a final decision upholding the citation against the plaintiff. The defendant further argued that, as a home rule unit of government, it possessed the authority to impose the challenged fines. Id.
The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the defendant’s home rule authority authorized the challenged fines. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶7. The plaintiff appealed. Id.
Appellate Court
The appellate court considered two principal issues: (1) the justiciability of the plaintiff’s claims and (2) DOAH’s adjudicatory authority over overweight vehicle violations. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶11.
The appellate court first examined whether the plaintiff’s claims were ripe for review. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶17. Applying the two-part test established in Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 231 Ill.2d 474, 901 N.E.2d 373, 384, 327 Ill.Dec. 45 (2008), the court concluded that the first prong was satisfied because the issues presented were legal, rather than factual, questions. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶19. The appellate court also found that the second prong was met because the plaintiff’s alleged injury was neither speculative nor contingent, and withholding judgment would subject other commercial truck drivers to a similar hardship. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶20.
After determining that the claim was ripe, the appellate court considered whether the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶22. It concluded that exhaustion was not required because the plaintiff’s challenge concerned DOAH’s jurisdiction, and jurisdictional challenges fall within a recognized exemption to the exhaustion doctrine. Id.
Upon determining that the plaintiff’s claims were justiciable, the appellate court considered DOAH’s authority pursuant to the defendant’s powers as a home rule unit of government. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶33. The appellate court began with the began with the principal that home-rule powers are to be construed broadly and therefore presumed that the defendant possessed authority to adjudicate overweight violations unless a specific statutory limitation could be identified. Id.
The plaintiff argued that such a limitation appeared in Illinois Vehicle Code §§11-208.2 and 11-208.3, 625 ILCS 5/11-208.2 at 5/11-208.3. The appellate court rejected that argument, concluding that the plaintiff’s position was based upon an incorrect assumption that the provisions governing standing and parking violations also applied to overweight vehicle violations. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶¶36, 42. Instead, the appellate court observed that the Vehicle Code separately addresses weight violations, thereby demonstrating its intent to distinguish them from other offenses. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶45. Accordingly, because the legislature did not expressly preempt a home-rule municipality’s authority to adjudicate overweight vehicle violations or impose the challenged fines, the court held that DOAH had jurisdiction over the matter. 2026 IL App (1st) 242135 at ¶¶45 – 46.
Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of both counts of the plaintiff’s complaint.
For more information about government law, see SPECIAL DISTRICTS (IICLE®, 2026). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.