(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.
“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.”
