Our legislature enacted the FOIA in recognition that (1) blanket government secrecy does not serve the public interest and (2) transparency should be the norm, except in rare, specified circumstances.

[3] The courts have also recognized a common law duty to disclose public records, balanced against an individual's right to privacy and the interests of the government.

Not all agencies were covered by disclosure requirements, and in those cases where a statute did not apply, the courts came to rely on common law to preserve the public's access to information.

Furthermore, common law recognized an exemption for "preliminary documents", applying to records that were "part of an investigation or decision making process upon which final action had not been taken".

[35] As concessions to the Illinois Municipal League, the bill was clarified to say that public bodies would not have to keep additional records beyond what was already required, and that requesters would pay for copying costs.

[36] Governor James R. Thompson issued an amendatory veto[c] on September 23, 1983,[31] which weakened the bill by expanding exemptions and removing criminal penalties for non-compliance, among other things.

[41] After the Illinois Constitution of 1970 granted this power for the first time, no other governor had issued amendatory vetoes more extensively than Thompson did, and his actions often created policy disagreements with the General Assembly.

[43] The Freedom of Information Council, the Illinois News Broadcasters Association, and WCIA in Champaign wanted the legislature to override, though Currie felt she didn't have the votes needed to do so.

Madigan agreed to impose a moratorium on amendments, and formed a task force under Currie's leadership to review the future of FOIA.

[52] The Better Government Association also conducted a survey in 2008 with the National Freedom of Information Coalition, ranking Illinois among the 38 out of 50 states receiving a grade of "F" for their versions of FOIA.

[61] Requesters were also allowed to submit complaints to the PAC, which became a more viable alternative to litigation because it leveled the "playing field" between two government agencies, rather than pitting private citizens against public bodies with more resources.

With these changes, the PAC could issue subpoenas and file lawsuits in the circuit courts to force compliance with a binding opinion or prevent a FOIA violation.

[62] At the 96th Illinois General Assembly, the final legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Michael Madigan on May 27, 2009, as a floor amendment to Senate Bill 189.

[57] Two weeks after Public Act 96-542 became effective, the General Assembly quickly passed a law that exempted the performance evaluations of school superintendents, principals, and teachers from disclosure.

The proposals included bills that would have reduced the rights of "vexatious" requesters, added more exemptions to FOIA, or allowed public bodies to charge higher fees.

[75] Currie, when introducing House Bill 234 to the General Assembly in 1983, stated that the legislature intended to make the courts subject to FOIA, in addition to the executive and legislative branches.

[85] When it enacted the original version of FOIA, the General Assembly replaced the common law test with a more explicit listing of the types of documents that are to be considered public records.

[92] In May 2016, the Circuit Court of Cook County clarified the matter when it ruled that personal emails of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel may be subject to disclosure, even when stored on private devices.

[93] Later that year, the Attorney General ruled in Public Access Opinion 16‑006 that officers of the Chicago Police Department were required to disclose their work-related emails stored on personal accounts.

On the other hand, this exemption covers: dates of birth, marital status, records relating to maternity leave, medical information, personal appointments on an employee calendar, and past salary history from private employers.

[119] The bill originally passed by the General Assembly contained a more limited exemption, which Thompson found to have a chilling effect on internal debate within agencies.

[124] During negotiations for the bill originally passed in 1983, representatives of the University of Illinois secured an exemption to protect: the privacy of scholarly peer review, the adjudication of student or employee grievances and disciplinary cases, and course or research materials used by faculty members.

[142] During the initial response in April 2020 to the COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois, municipal officials urged Raoul, by then serving as Attorney General, to extend the deadline to respond to FOIA requests, as public bodies were operating with fewer employees and struggled to maintain core services.

For other types of records, public bodies may continue to charge fees that cover the actual costs of copying or providing the required storage media.

[157] Public bodies were advised to appoint other employees to initially handle FOIA requests, so that the head could focus on appeals and obtain legal advice as needed.

[159] However, this process was also viewed as "perfunctory" and repealed by Public Act 96-542,[67] which allowed requesters to file litigation immediately after receiving the initial denial.

[161] When litigation is filed, the court considers the matter de novo and conducts an in camera review of the records to determine whether the information is exempt from disclosure.

Since this change had not aligned with a 2007 amendment to the federal FOIA that used the phrase "substantially prevail", the court concluded that the General Assembly had intended to narrow the circumstances under which plaintiffs recover attorney's fees.

[171] An investigation by the Better Government Association showed that the city of Chicago paid $2.4 million in attorney's fees to requesters who had prevailed in FOIA litigation from 2010 through 2021.

John Rappaport, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, speculated that these FOIA denials are driven by a lack of clear precedent from the courts, along with an insular culture at the police department.