Cenergy-Glenmore Wind Farm 1, LLC v. Town of Glenmore, 769 F.3d 485

CEnergy sought to develop a Glenmore wind farm after acquiring Prelude’s assets in Dec 2010; Glenmore granted a CUP but delayed building-permit decisions amid strong local opposition.
Prelude learned in Sept 2010 it needed a building permit for seven turbines; the Town Board refused to accept permit applications without more information.
CEnergy informed the Board in Dec 2010 that permits had to be approved by Mar 1, 2011 for the WPS power-purchase agreement to take effect; WPS later backed out.
Dec 2010–Mar 2011: Board delayed action, amid threats to officials and public opposition; CEnergy submitted information and CEnergy sales viability framing.
March 7, 2011: Board granted permits, then rescinded; later reversals still left permits not issued; WPS contract became unviable due to permit-delay; CEnergy sued claiming substantive due process and failure to deal in good faith.
District court dismissed CEnergy’s substantive due process claim and declined supplemental state-law claim; CEnergy appealed, asserting a property-rights and due-process theory under state land-use law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CEnergy states a substantive due process claim.	CEnergy asserts Board delay was arbitrary and an egregious abuse of authority.	Glenmore argues delay was rational—public opposition justifies timing; no state-remedy failure claimed.	No; delay not arbitrary in the constitutional sense; claim fails.
Whether CEnergy failed to pursue state-law remedies required to support a due-process claim.	CEnergy did not obtain mandamus or use zoning-ordinance process.	State remedies were available and must be pursued; federal claims barred without them.	No substantive due process claim given requirement to pursue state remedies.
Whether CEnergy had a cognizable property interest in the permits.	CEnergy contends vested rights in CUP and permits.	Building-permit decision could be discretionary; no guaranteed right.	Court need not decide; independent grounds defeat claim.
Whether River Park-style approach directs that CEnergy sue in state court for land-use remedy.	Labels aside, state-law remedy should be pursued.	Courts defer to state processes; federal review limited.	Yes; CEnergy should have pursued state remedies; federal action barred.

River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 23 F.3d 164 (7th Cir. 1994) (state and local land-use decisions deserve deference; resort to state court favored)
Centres, Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, 148 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 1998) (labels don’t matter; repair to state court for land-use disputes)
Polenz v. Parrott, 883 F.2d 551 (7th Cir. 1989) (state remedies required to support due-process challenge)