Constitutional concerns raised over Illinois' first civil hate crime
case
[January 12, 2026]
By Catrina Barker | The Center Square contributor
(The Center Square) – A former Illinois attorney general candidate says
the state’s first civil hate crime lawsuit, while based on “horrendous”
conduct, sets a troubling precedent by allowing the attorney general to
punish criminal behavior through civil fines that may exceed
constitutional limits.
Constitutional attorney David Shestokas’ comments follow Attorney
General Kwame Raoul’s announcement that his office secured a $90,000
civil judgment in the state’s first lawsuit filed under the expanded
Illinois Hate Crimes Act.
“The facts of what these people did are very, very terrible,” said
Shestokas, who ran for attorney general in 2022. “But the facts of what
the attorney general did are equally terrible, because it goes beyond
the authority granted to that office under the Illinois and U.S.
Constitution.”
Court records show Chad and Cheryl Hampton engaged in months of racially
motivated harassment of their neighbor, including property damage,
racist displays, and hanging a noosed effigy, actions that later led to
criminal charges against Cheryl Hampton. Cheryl Hampton was sentenced to
prison for three years, while Chad Hampton was acquitted criminally but
still ordered to pay civil penalties and damages totaling $45,000.
The ruling marks the first time Raoul has used authority granted by a
2018 amendment to the Illinois Hate Crimes Act allowing the attorney
general to file civil lawsuits against perpetrators of hate crimes.
Although the Illinois Hate Crimes Act specifies a $5,000 civil penalty,
the bulk of the judgment came from punitive damages imposed by the
judge.
“Judge [Jerry] Kane ordered Chad and Cheryl Hampton to each pay a $5,000
civil penalty, as well as actual and punitive damages of $45,000 each to
[Gregory] Johnson,” stated a news release from the attorney general’s
office.
Gregory Johnson is the intimidated, Black neighbor in the case.
“This behavior is shocking, racist and un-American,” Raoul said in a
statement. “With dramatic increases in reported hate crimes, I will
continue to use all of the tools at my disposal to prosecute hate crimes
and send the message that hate has no place in Illinois.”
Shestokas said the civil judgment effectively imposed punishment for
criminal conduct through a different legal channel.
[to top of second column]
|
“In reality, they were fined for criminal activity,” he said. “And
when you impose a $90,000 civil fine where the criminal law would
allow far less, you run headfirst into the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition on excessive fines.”
He also questioned the fairness of holding Chad Hampton civilly
liable after a criminal acquittal.
“This gives the attorney general the ability to get around the
criminal law and still punish someone,” Shestokas said, noting the
lower burden of proof in civil cases.
Shestokas says Raoul’s civil hate crime lawsuit blurs the line
between representing the state and acting as a private attorney for
an individual victim.
“The job of a government prosecutor is to represent the people as a
whole, not to prosecute individual civil cases,” Shestokas said.
“There’s nothing wrong with a private attorney filing suit for a
homeowner who was treated terribly, but when the attorney general
does it, he’s picking winners and losers. He simply doesn’t have the
resources to prosecute every instance of bad or offensive conduct.”
Shestokas emphasized he is not defending the Hamptons’ conduct.
“This is not a First Amendment case,” Shestokas said. “Once you
cross into intimidating a witness during an active criminal case,
free speech protections no longer apply. That’s a legitimate
criminal offense.”
The case highlights larger debates over hate crime laws and their
enforcement, Shestokas said, arguing they elevate certain victims
over others.
“These laws sound good politically,” he said, “but they elevate
certain victims over others. If you’re a certain race, gender, or
belief, and you’re the victim of a crime because of that, the law
treats you as a more important victim than someone who just gets
shot … on the street.”
 |
