The Fifth District Appellate Court held that Madison County Associate Judge Ryan Jumper’s dismissal of a man’s FOID card dispute for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was improper.
Justice Mike McHaney delivered the Rule 23 decision on Oct. 26 with Justices Mark Boie and Judy Cates concurring.
The appellate court held that plaintiff Jeffrey Vogelpohl “was not required to exhaust state administrative remedies before bringing his United States and Illinois constitutional claims.”
Vogelpohl filed his lawsuit in the Madison County Circuit Court against the Captain Bureau Chief of the Firearms Services Bureau, Gregory Hacker. Vogelpohl seeks injunctive relief after his Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card was revoked due to an alleged felony cannabis possession conviction in 1980.
His complaint alleges that in 2021 he applied for and received a FOID card. Then in October 2021, he attempted to complete a transfer of two firearms from a licensed firearm dealer. The transaction was rejected, and he was officially notified that his FOID card had been revoked one week later.
Vogelpohl was charged with possession of more than 500 grams of a substance containing cannabis in Pike County in August 1980. He entered a guilty plea in September 1980 and was sentenced to two years of probation. He was successfully discharged from probation in September 1982.
The appellate court explains that Vogelpohl’s probation qualified as a “second chance” form of probation pursuant to the Cannabis Control Act.
“The candidates for this type of probation are first-time felony offenders. Upon fulfillment of the term of probation, the court must discharge the person and dismiss the proceedings against him. ‘Discharge and dismissal under this section is not a conviction for the purposes of disqualification or disabilities imposed by law upon conviction of a crime,” McHaney wrote.
Vogelpohl specifically alleged that he had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but the state sought to dismiss his claims for failing to bring them under the Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Act.
The state argued that Vogelpohl’s complaint should have been filed directly with the Illinois State Police Director rather than the circuit court.
“Thus, the state contended that Vogelpohl must exhaust administrative remedies before he seeks constitutional relief,” McHaney wrote.
Jumper granted dismissal, and Vogelpohl appealed to the Fifth District.
“While we understand the foundation of the trial court’s order concluding that Vogelpohl must first exhaust his administrative remedies, we conclude that the trial court’s order was in error,” McHaney wrote. “Having reviewed Vogelpohl’s amended complaint, there is no question that his claim factually began with his state efforts to administratively obtain his FOID card. However, after his FOID card was revoked, Vogelpohl legally raised constitutional claims.”
The appellate court found that the U.S. Supreme Court previously held that an individual does not need to exhaust state administrative remedies before seeking relief pursuant to the Civil Rights Act.
“The Supreme Court found that the United States government was established ‘as a guarantor of the basic federal rights of individuals against incursions by state power,’” McHaney wrote.