Ever wondered what strange laws might be lurking in your state's legal code? Illinois has some genuinely bizarre statutes that remain technically enforceable today, from marriage restrictions that sound like they're from a dystopian novel to oddly specific rules about animal entertainment. After diving deep into the Prairie State's legal archives, I've uncovered 10 verified laws that will make you question everything you thought you knew about reasonable legislation.
The most entertaining laws still on Illinois's books
Let me start with the absolute crown jewel of weird Illinois laws, because this one never fails to get a reaction at parties. Under 750 ILCS 5/212, first cousins can legally marry in Illinois, but there's a catch that sounds like it was written by someone with a very dark sense of humor. The law prohibits cousin marriage unless both parties are over 50 years old, or unless either party can present a physician's certificate proving they are "permanently and irreversibly sterile."
Yes, you read that correctly. The state of Illinois essentially says, "Sure, marry your cousin, but only if you're too old to have kids or if you can prove you're shooting blanks." County clerks must verify these certificates before issuing marriage licenses, which must lead to some incredibly awkward conversations at the courthouse. Family law attorneys report these marriages actually happen, making Illinois unusual among states that allow first cousin marriage under any circumstances.
The historical reasoning makes a twisted kind of sense when you think about it. The law was designed to prevent genetic issues in offspring while still allowing some flexibility for couples who cannot reproduce. But the specific age cutoff of 50 seems arbitrary, and I can only imagine the legislative debates that led to this particular compromise.
Privacy laws that would make the NSA nervous
Moving from the bizarre to the genuinely serious, Illinois maintains what legal experts call the strictest eavesdropping law in America. Under 720 ILCS 5/14, recording a private conversation without the consent of all parties involved is a Class 4 felony. The penalties are no joke either, with violators facing 1-3 years in prison and fines up to $25,000.
This isn't some dusty old law that nobody enforces. The Illinois Supreme Court actually struck down the original version in 2014 for being unconstitutionally broad. The legislature immediately enacted a revised version that focuses on "surreptitious" recording while making distinctions between private and public conversations. Prosecutors actively pursue these cases, which means that recording your annoying coworker without permission could land you in serious legal trouble.
The law has created some interesting situations. Journalists have struggled with how to conduct investigative reporting, and even recording police encounters can be legally complicated. While many states have one-party consent laws for recording, Illinois demands everyone in the conversation agree to being recorded, making it one of the most privacy-protective states in the nation.
Chicago's war on pickup trucks
Here's where things get weird again. Chicago maintains a controversial ban on pickup trucks driving on Lake Shore Drive under Ordinance 9-72-020. The law targets vehicles "designed primarily" for carrying freight or goods, which sounds reasonable until you realize this includes your neighbor's F-150 that they use for Home Depot runs on weekends.
The history behind this law is pure Chicago class warfare. Lake Shore Drive was designed in the 1800s as a "pleasure drive" for wealthy residents to enjoy carriage rides along the lakefront. Chicago historian Eric McClendon notes that Thursday afternoons were even designated for "fast driving" where young men would race their horses. Apparently, the city never got over its snobbish origins.
Police do issue citations for violations, though enforcement is wildly inconsistent. Many pickup truck owners report driving the route without incident, while others have been ticketed. In 2000, a Ford Ranger owner successfully challenged a citation in court, highlighting the ongoing confusion about what exactly constitutes a prohibited vehicle. The law remains a source of frustration for contractors, landscapers, and anyone else who happens to own a practical vehicle in the Windy City.
Animal laws that defy explanation
Illinois takes animal welfare seriously, but some of the specific prohibitions venture into the realm of the absurd. The state's Animal Control Act contains provisions that make you wonder what exactly was happening in Illinois that required legislative intervention.
For instance, Chapter 510 ILCS 5 specifically forbids giving lit cigars to dogs, cats, and other domestic animals. Let that sink in for a moment. At some point in Illinois history, enough people were apparently giving their pets lit cigars that lawmakers felt compelled to specifically ban the practice. While the exact historical origins are unclear, this prohibition likely arose from early 20th century concerns about animal cruelty when cigars were more commonly used as entertainment props.
The law falls under general Animal Control Act penalties, though I'd be shocked if anyone has been prosecuted for this specific offense in the last century. Still, if you were planning a comedy routine involving your cat and a Cuban cigar, you'll need to take your act to another state.
Even stranger is another provision in the same act that makes it illegal to make faces at dogs. This isn't just a quirky footnote; it could have real legal implications. Attorneys at Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates point out that under Illinois's strict liability system for dog bites, making faces at a dog could be considered provocation that might affect liability in injury cases.
Imagine explaining to a judge that you shouldn't be liable for a dog bite because the plaintiff was making funny faces at your poodle. It sounds ridiculous, but in Illinois, it's a legitimate legal defense backed by actual statute.
When municipal pride goes too far
Some laws exist purely because local governments want to assert their identity, and nowhere is this more apparent than in Chicago's obsessive requirements for its flag design. Ordinance 1-8-030 contains extraordinarily detailed specifications that would make a graphic designer weep.
The law makes it unlawful to alter the design or add any unauthorized letters, words, or devices to the flag. The ordinance specifies that the flag must be "white, with two blue bars, each taking up a sixth of its space, running from side to side, close together, near the top and bottom borders of the flag." It goes on to describe "four bright red stars with sharp points, six in number, set side by side, close together, in the middle third of the surface of the flag."
While violations are virtually never prosecuted, the law reflects Chicago's intense pride in its municipal identity. The city's flag is actually considered one of the best-designed city flags in the nation, so perhaps the obsessive protection isn't entirely unwarranted. Still, the level of detail in the ordinance suggests someone had way too much time on their hands when drafting this legislation.
Small town pride with a price tag
Not to be outdone by Chicago, the city of Joliet has its own pride-based law that's equal parts amusing and petty. The city maintains a misdemeanor ordinance that fines residents $5 for mispronouncing the city's name as "Jolly-ETTE" instead of the correct "Joe-lee-ETTE."
Created by town fathers frustrated with hearing their city's name consistently butchered by outsiders, this symbolic ordinance remains on the books though enforcement would be practically impossible. Can you imagine a police officer pulling someone over for pronunciation crimes? The law represents one of the more whimsical examples of municipal pride in Illinois, where local identity apparently runs strong enough to legislate linguistics.
The five-dollar fine seems almost quaint by modern standards. Adjusted for inflation from when the law was likely passed, that fine would be substantial today, but nobody bothered to update it. It's almost charming in its ineffectiveness.
Obsolete entertainment that's still illegal
Chicago's municipal code contains several prohibitions on forms of entertainment that most people have never heard of, much less participated in. Take Ordinance 8-12-010, which specifically prohibits playing Faro, a 19th-century gambling card game that's been extinct for decades.
Faro was once as popular as poker, involving players betting on cards drawn from a dealing box. The game was notorious for being easily rigged by dishonest dealers, which explains why it fell out of favor and why Chicago wanted it banned. The law carries administrative fines under the Department of Administrative Hearings, though enforcing it would require finding someone who actually knows how to play Faro.
University of Illinois at Chicago political scientist Dick Simpson observed that these laws are "mostly harmless — and rarely, if ever, enforced" but encouraged officials to clear obsolete laws from the books. His observation raises an interesting point about legislative housekeeping that we'll explore later.
Modern problems requiring old solutions
Some obsolete-seeming laws address activities that were genuinely problematic. Springfield specifically outlaws "dwarf-tossing" in bars and taverns, though the practice is apparently allowed elsewhere in town with a special permit.
For those fortunately unfamiliar with this practice, it involved hurling people with dwarfism wearing padded suits, and it actually gained popularity in some establishments during the 1980s and 1990s. The law was created as both a safety measure and dignity protection, and similar laws exist in Florida and New York. While it might seem like a quirky prohibition today, it addressed a real issue that required legislative attention.
The city of Mendota takes a different approach to public safety with its ordinance forbidding "fancy riding" on bicycles. The law specifically prohibits removing hands from handlebars while riding on city streets. This stems from early bicycle safety concerns when "trick riding" was popular but dangerous on unpaved or poorly maintained roads.
Why these laws refuse to die
Understanding why these unusual laws persist requires a look at how Illinois's legislative process works. The Illinois General Assembly meets in biennial sessions with limited time for comprehensive statute review. More importantly, removing outdated laws requires the same legislative process as creating new ones, including committee review and floor debates.
Legislators understandably prioritize current societal needs over historical cleanup. As attorneys from Zayed Law Offices observed, removing quirky but harmless laws is viewed as low-priority "housekeeping" compared to addressing pressing issues like education funding, healthcare, or criminal justice reform.
Professor Dennis Baron of the University of Illinois provided a perfect example of legislative inertia. A 1923 Illinois law making "American" rather than English the official language wasn't amended until 1969. That's 46 years of a nonsensical law sitting on the books because nobody could be bothered to fix it.
The complexity of Illinois's legal code compounds the problem. With thousands of statutes across numerous chapters and acts, conducting a comprehensive review would be a massive undertaking. Constitutional requirements for the legislative process mean that even removing obviously obsolete laws requires formal votes and gubernatorial approval.
Separating fact from fiction
One of the biggest challenges in discussing unusual laws is distinguishing real statutes from urban legends. Research revealed that many widely circulated "weird Illinois laws" are actually myths without verifiable statute numbers.
Common myths include supposed prohibitions on:
- Fishing while wearing pajamas
- Taking French poodles to the opera
- Contacting police before entering a city in an automobile
- Giving dogs whiskey
- Eating in a burning building
None of these have any documentary evidence in actual legal codes. The proliferation of these myths online creates a circular citation problem where sources quote each other without anyone checking original statutes. Legal professionals emphasize the importance of verifying actual ordinance numbers and statutory citations, a standard many "weird law" compilations fail to meet.
The enforcement reality
Perhaps the most important context for understanding these laws is how they're actually enforced, or rather, how they're not. Law enforcement agencies focus their limited resources on public safety violations, traffic enforcement, and quality-of-life issues rather than pursuing violations of archaic statutes.
The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police prioritizes officer safety, community relations, and effective crime prevention. They're not dispatching officers to arrest people for making faces at dogs or giving cigars to cats. This practical approach means that while these laws remain technically enforceable, actual prosecution is virtually nonexistent except where the underlying conduct raises genuine safety or welfare concerns.
Northwestern Illinois University history professor Joshua Salzmann offered perhaps the best perspective on these laws. He noted that while they seem "strange or archaic," they offer "interesting glimpses of the issues that concerned Chicagoans in earlier eras." Each weird law tells a story about what mattered to people at a specific point in history.
What we can learn from legal oddities
These unusual laws serve as more than just conversation starters or blog fodder. They're historical artifacts that reveal how societies evolve and what issues once seemed important enough to require legislation. The cousin marriage law reflects early 20th century concerns about genetics. The eavesdropping statute shows Illinois's longstanding emphasis on privacy rights. Even the ban on giving cigars to pets speaks to changing attitudes about animal welfare.
For those interested in exploring more, the Illinois General Assembly website provides searchable access to all state statutes. The Chicago municipal code is similarly available online for anyone curious about city-specific ordinances. And if you want to compare Illinois's weird laws to those in other states, numerous compilations exist, though remember to verify any claims with actual statutory citations.
The persistence of these unusual laws offers valuable insights into Illinois's legislative history and social evolution. They remind us that laws are created by humans responding to specific circumstances, and what seems perfectly reasonable in one era can appear absurd in another. While most of these statutes will never be enforced, they remain part of Illinois's legal DNA, waiting to surprise and amuse future generations who stumble upon them.
So the next time someone tells you about a weird law, ask for the statute number. And if you're planning to marry your cousin in Illinois, make sure you have the proper documentation. The law may be strange, but it's still the law.
