County of Cook v. Village of Bridgeview
8 N.E.3d 1275
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Cook County enacted a countywide Animal and Rabies Control Ordinance (1977) and in 2007 added a "Managed Care of Feral Cats" provision authorizing trap-neuter-release (TNR) programs and permitting residents to maintain feral cat colonies if participating in approved TNR.
- The County's TNR program vaccinates, microchips, and sterilizes feral cats; County evidence showed cost savings, reduced euthanasia, and over 9,000 cats treated.
- Bridgeview is a home-rule municipality inside Cook County that, in 2009, adopted an ordinance forbidding residents from operating feral cat colonies within the village and imposing fines.
- Cook County sued Bridgeview seeking a declaration that the village lacked authority (statutory and home-rule) to enact the ordinance and an injunction against enforcement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the County; the appellate court affirmed, holding Bridgeview exceeded both its home-rule power and statutory authority under the Animal Control Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (Bridgeview) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bridgeview’s ban on feral‑cat colonies is an exercise of home‑rule power "pertaining to its government and affairs" | County: Animal control and rabies prevention are of statewide/county concern; counties have primary role, so Bridgeview exceeded home‑rule authority | Bridgeview: Home‑rule power broadly permits local regulation for public health and welfare | Held: Ordinance invalid as an exercise of home‑rule power — the matter is of statewide/county dimension and counties have a more vital interest |
| Whether section 24 of the Animal Control Act authorizes Bridgeview to forbid feral‑cat colonies | County: Section 24 allows local rules against animals running at large or stricter rules but does not authorize a ban on operation of feral‑cat colonies that conflicts with county program | Bridgeview: Section 24 preserves municipal authority to prohibit animals running at large and otherwise regulate cats, so its ordinance is statutorily permitted | Held: Section 24 does not authorize outright ban on feral‑cat colonies; Bridgeview exceeded its statutory authority and ordinance is precluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 103 Ill.2d 483 (statewide-vs-local test: nature/extent of problem, units with vital interest, traditional roles)
- Village of Bolingbrook v. Citizens Utilities Co. of Illinois, 158 Ill.2d 133 (ordinance pertains to government and affairs when problem is local)
- City of Chicago v. Village of Elk Grove Village, 354 Ill. App. 3d 423 (limits on home‑rule legislation under art. VII §6(a))
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Transportation Ins. Co., 327 Ill. App. 3d 128 (cross-motions for summary judgment invite legal resolution of issues)