Friends of the Parks v. Chicago Park District

Majority - John W. Darrah

No, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is denied because the plaintiffs have plausibly stated claims that the long-term lease of public trust land for the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art violates their due process rights, exceeds the Park District's authority, and breaches the public trust doctrine. Regarding the Due Process claim (Count I), the court affirmed that Illinois taxpayers have a constitutionally protected property interest in public trust property. Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a deprivation without due process by claiming the General Assembly’s amended Museum Act did not provide specific approval for the alienation, forfeiture, or disposition of the specific land subject to the lease. The court must accept these allegations as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, thus allowing the procedural due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment to proceed. For the Ultra Vires claim (Count II), the court found that plaintiffs plausibly stated that the Park District acted beyond its legal authority by entering into the lease without specific authorization from the General Assembly. While the legislature can delegate authority for execution, it cannot delegate its general legislative power to determine what the law shall be, especially concerning public trust land. The court noted that the amended Museum Act’s general language did not explicitly refer to the alienation or disposition of the subject land, raising a question as to its sufficiency for transferring control of public trust land to a private entity. The defendants' argument that specific authorization would violate the special legislation clause of the Illinois Constitution was not found compelling, as similar public trust transfers have been upheld without raising this clause as a bar. Concerning the Public Trust claim (Count III), the court emphasized that the State of Illinois holds title to submerged land in trust for the people and cannot abdicate control over such property for private use without promoting public interest and without substantially impairing the public interest in remaining lands and waters. The court distinguished the 99-year Ground Lease, which grants LMNA ownership of the museum building and exclusive control, from a mere permit as in Friends of Parks v. Chicago Park Dist. (the Soldier Field case). It cited precedent indicating that a long-term lease can convey a substantial interest in real property, effectively surrendering control. The court rejected the argument that the public trust doctrine is only implicated by a complete conveyance of title, pointing to Illinois Central Railroad Co., which spoke of relinquishing 'control.' Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the lease effectively surrenders control of the Museum Site and primarily benefits the LMNA’s private and/or commercial interests, rather than the public, thus warranting further examination under the public trust doctrine. The court reiterated that it must be critical of attempts to surrender valuable public resources to private entities and prevent legislative decisions from merely 'rubber stamping' alleged public gains.