Court Bars Police Pensioner from Joining Second Article 3 Fund

On November 14, 2025, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that a police officer already receiving pension benefits from one Article 3 fund cannot join a second Article 3 fund when hired by another municipality.

In Kooistra v. Board of Trustees of the Sycamore Police Pension Fund, 2025 IL App (2d) 240787, the court affirmed that such officers may only participate in a defined contribution plan, not the municipality’s Article 3 pension fund. In Kooistra, a police officer retired from the Roselle Police Department after 27 years and began receiving his pension on January 3, 2024. One day later, he was hired as a patrol officer in Sycamore and applied for membership in the Sycamore Police Pension Fund.

The Pension Board denied the officer’s application for membership citing Public Act 100-281. Effective August 24, 2017, the Act amended Article 3 of the Illinois Pension Code to address concerns about “double dipping” by retired police officers who return to active service. The Act added Section 3-124.1(b) to prevent officers receiving pension benefits from one municipality from joining a second Article 3 fund if the officer “first becomes a member on or after January 1, 2019.” (40 ILCS 5/3-124.1(b)) These officers may, instead, participate in defined contribution plans under Section 3-109.4. (40 ILCS 5/3-109.4)

In court, the officer argued that Public Act 100-281’s provisions did not apply to him because he first joined a pension fund in 1997—well before the January 1, 2019, cutoff date provided in Section 3-124.1(b).

The court disagreed. It interpreted Section 3-124.1(b) to mean that any officer who enters service with a new municipality on or after January 1, 2019, while already receiving pension payments, cannot participate in that municipality’s Article 3 fund. Such officers must instead participate in a defined contribution plan under Section 3-109.4, which municipalities are required to establish. This interpretation, the court found, aligns with the legislature’s goal of eliminating “double dipping” into multiple Article 3 pension funds.

Strikingly, the court rejected the officer’s argument that this interpretation violated the Pension Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution, which provides:

Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5)

The court held that, because Section 3-124.1(b) was enacted before the officer’s retirement and rehiring, he never acquired a contractual right to participate in a second Article 3 fund. In the court’s view, the Pension Protection Clause only protects benefits already earned—not the opportunity to earn new benefits under terms that no longer exist. In so doing, the court reasoned that the constitutional prohibition against the diminishment of benefits of membership in public retirement systems is specific to each pension fund.

Kooistra therefore represents a shift in understanding of whether the Pension Protection Clause applies to those seeking to join a second Article 3 fund after retirement. However, the case may be further reviewed by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Please contact one of ODHC’s pension attorneys if you have any questions regarding the Kooistra decision or Public Act 100-281’s impact on Article 3 membership.