Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. v. Thompson
483 N.E.2d 1245, 108 Ill. 2d 357, 91 Ill. Dec. 610 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative body may enact regulations targeting a specific public nuisance, even if they apply to only one entity at the time of enactment, provided the classifications within the law are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Facts:
- The Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. (the Cubs) owns Wrigley Field, an open-air baseball park with a seating capacity of over 37,000.
- Wrigley Field, built in 1914, is located in the densely populated, predominantly residential Lake View area of Chicago.
- The neighborhood surrounding the park has limited off-street parking facilities and is not in close proximity to any expressways.
- At the time of the dispute, Wrigley Field was the only major league baseball park that did not have lights for playing night games.
- Illinois enacted a statute subjecting professional nighttime sporting events to noise regulations if played in a city of over 1,000,000 people at a stadium where such events were not played prior to July 1, 1982.
- The City of Chicago enacted an ordinance prohibiting nighttime amusements in non-enclosed stadia with more than 15,000 seats where seats are located within 500 feet of 100 or more dwelling units.
- The parties agreed that the city ordinance would effectively prohibit the Cubs from playing night games at Wrigley Field.
Procedural Posture:
- The Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. (the Cubs) filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the circuit court of Cook County against the Governor of Illinois and the city of Chicago.
- The Lake View Citizens Council (LVCC), a local neighborhood organization, was granted leave to intervene as a defendant.
- The circuit court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding the statute and ordinance to be constitutional exercises of police power.
- The LVCC and the city of Chicago filed motions for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, which the court allowed.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a state statute and a city ordinance, which together subject only Wrigley Field to nighttime noise regulations and effectively prohibit night games, violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions and the special-legislation clause of the Illinois Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ward
No, the statute and ordinance do not violate equal protection or the special-legislation clause because their classifications are rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting residents from the public nuisance of nighttime noise. The court applied the rational basis test because the legislation does not target a suspect class or infringe upon a fundamental right. Under this deferential standard, there is a presumption of validity, and the challenger bears the burden of proving the law is unreasonable. The court found rational bases for the various legislative classifications, including population size (denser populations are more affected by noise and traffic), the distinction between day and night (evenings are traditionally for quieter pursuits), professional versus amateur sports (professional sports are larger, profit-driven enterprises), and the grandfather clause (legislatures may address problems one step at a time and regulate expectant interests). Similarly, the ordinance's classifications based on stadium enclosure, seating capacity, and proximity to residences are all rationally related to the goal of mitigating noise. The fact that the legislation currently affects only Wrigley Field is not dispositive, as the legislature may address what it perceives to be the most acute need and the laws will apply to any future stadia meeting the criteria.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the broad deference courts grant to legislative bodies under the rational basis standard of review, particularly concerning the exercise of police power to regulate public health, safety, and welfare. It establishes that a law is not unconstitutional 'special legislation' or a denial of equal protection merely because its specific classifications result in it applying to only one entity at the time of enactment. The case serves as a key precedent for upholding targeted land use and environmental regulations, demonstrating that legislatures can address localized problems with narrowly tailored laws so long as a conceivable rational basis for the classifications exists.
