2020 IL App (1st) 192099
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs: two Chicago nonprofits (Grassroots Collaborative and Raise Your Hand) challenged the City of Chicago’s administration and specific designation (Cortland & Chicago River) of TIF districts, alleging racial/ethnic discrimination and unlawful use of TIF funds under the TIF Act and Illinois Civil Rights Act.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Cortland & Chicago River TIF was not blighted and failed the statutory "but-for" test, and that TIFs diverted tax increment revenue away from general funds (e.g., schools), concentrating benefits in predominantly white, affluent areas.
- Plaintiffs claimed injury by alleging the City’s actions frustrated their missions and forced them to divert time and resources from other advocacy to challenge the City’s TIF practices.
- The City moved to dismiss under section 2-619.1 for lack of standing, arguing plaintiffs’ alleged diversion-of-resources was not a legally cognizable, traceable injury.
- The circuit court dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing. The appellate majority affirmed, holding diversion alone (without impairment of services/activities) does not establish organizational standing; a dissent would have remanded to allow amendment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organizational standing — sufficiency of diversion-of-resources as injury | Diversion of resources and frustration of mission (citing Havens) is a concrete injury that confers standing | Diversion is managerial reallocation (no distinct legal injury); not fairly traceable to impairment of plaintiffs’ services | Held: Insufficient. Diversion/mission-frustration alone is an abstract injury and does not confer standing absent impairment of services/activities |
| Applicability of Havens Realty (whether resource drain alone suffices) | Havens supports standing where an organization’s resources are drained by defendant’s conduct | Havens applies where defendant’s conduct perceptibly impaired the organization’s services; it does not authorize standing based only on reallocated advocacy costs | Held: Havens was limited — injury requires impairment of organization’s activities/services; resource diversion by itself is not enough |
| Traceability/redressability of alleged harms to plaintiffs (funding effects on schools) | TIFs siphon funds from public services (e.g., schools), undermining plaintiffs’ missions and thus are traceable injuries to plaintiffs | Any injury to schools or the public does not equate to a legally cognizable injury to plaintiffs themselves | Held: Plaintiffs lacked a cognizable injury from generalized harms to public institutions; such harms do not confer plaintiff-specific standing |
| Dismissal with prejudice / leave to amend | Complaint sufficiently pleaded facts; or, at minimum, plaintiffs could amend to plead impairment of activities | Plaintiffs never requested leave to amend below; dismissal with prejudice was within court’s discretion | Held: Affirmed dismissal with prejudice; appellate majority found plaintiffs forfeited any request to amend and trial court did not abuse discretion (dissent would remand to permit amendment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organization has standing where defendant’s conduct perceptibly impairs its ability to provide services, producing concrete injury)
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982) (standing requires a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to defendant and likely redressable)
- Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (resource expenditures to educate or advocate, without operational impairment beyond normal costs, do not establish organizational standing)
- Common Cause Indiana v. Lawson, 937 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2019) (organizations must allege additional/new burdens beyond business-as-usual to show standing)
- Plotkin v. Ryan, 239 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2001) (ordinary expenditures in furtherance of an organization’s purpose do not constitute injury-in-fact for standing)
- Lane v. Holder, 703 F.3d 668 (4th Cir. 2012) (diversion of resources from an organization’s budgetary choices, absent impairment, does not confer standing)
- Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211 (1999) (Illinois standing requires distinct, palpable injury to a legally cognizable interest)