City of Chicago v. Alexander
2015 IL App (1st) 122858-B
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Park District Ordinance prohibits remaining in Chicago parks from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.; applies to Grant Park, including Congress Plaza.
- Occupy Chicago protesters gathered in Grant Park and then moved to a sidewalk; police warned and arrested those staying past 11 p.m.
- Circuit court struck the ordinance as facially unconstitutional and as-applied to defendants; City appealed.
- Record shows protests on Oct. 15 and Oct. 22, 2011, with arrests of 173 and 130 protesters respectively; consolidated into one proceeding.
- Illinois Supreme Court instructed to review free assembly rights under both U.S. and Illinois constitutions and assess facial and as-applied challenges.
- Court ultimately reverses the circuit court and remands for further proceedings on the ordinance's validity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial validity of the park ordinance under the First Amendment | City argues ordinance is facially constitutional | Alexander argues ordinance is facially unconstitutional | Not facially invalid; regulation deemed permissible |
| As-applied validity of the ordinance | City contends as-applied use to defendants is constitutional | Alexander contends as-applied enforcement violates rights | Not invalid as applied to defendants |
| Selective enforcement and equal protection | City asserts no selective enforcement against Occupy Chicago | Defendants claim viewpoint-based enforcement | No violation; no improper selective enforcement shown |
| Illinois Constitution free assembly protection | City argues Illinois right to assembly aligns with federal standards | Defendants claim broader Illinois protection invalidates ordinance | Illinois analysis follows federal framework; ordinance does not violate Art. I, §5 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (content-neutral regulation; time/place/manner concepts)
- Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (content-neutral regulation balance; substantial government interest)
- O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for content-neutral regulation of conduct)
- Clark v. C.N.V., 468 U.S. 288 (1984) (time/place/manner restrictions; parks as public forums)
- Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) (ample alternatives; different methods of communication)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (facial challenge; overbreadth scrutiny)
- Napleton v. Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296 (2008) (de novo review of constitutionality; facial vs as-applied)
- Chicago Park District v. Lyons, 39 Ill. 2d 584 (1968) (park regulation in Illinois context)
- People v. Reed, 148 Ill. 2d 1 (1992) (equal protection balancing; similarly situated)
- Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 231 Ill. 2d 474 (2008) (facial vs as-applied challenges)