Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Ass'n v. County of Cook
2022 IL 127126
| Ill. | 2022Background:
- In 2016 Illinois added Article IX, § 11 (the "transportation taxes and fees lockbox" or "safe roads" Amendment) to restrict use of proceeds from transportation-related bond proceeds, taxes, fees, excises, and license taxes to transportation purposes.
- In 2018 associations of public-transportation contractors sued Cook County, alleging six home-rule county tax/fee ordinances (e.g., wheel tax, motor-fuel tax, new motor vehicle excise) produced revenues the County diverted to its Public Safety Fund rather than to transportation purposes in violation of the Amendment.
- The County moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 2-619; the circuit court dismissed for lack of standing and for failure to state a violation; the appellate court reversed on standing but affirmed dismissal on the merits (finding ambiguity and relying on extrinsic sources).
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether plaintiffs have standing (associational) and (2) whether the Amendment applies to revenues raised by home-rule units.
- The Supreme Court held plaintiffs have associational standing and that the Amendment’s plain text covers all "no moneys" from transportation-related taxes (including those imposed by home-rule units); it reversed the circuit court dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (associational) | Associations’ members lost economic opportunities because diverted funds reduced transportation projects | County: alleged injuries speculative; members cannot show they lost specific bids | Court: Associations have associational standing—economic opportunity loss is a distinct, traceable, redressable injury; 2-619 dismissal improper |
| Scope of Amendment (home-rule revenues) | Amendment’s plain language ("No moneys ...") covers all transportation-related proceeds, regardless of who levies them | County: Amendment applies only to state/statutorily directed revenues; home-rule taxing/spending preserved | Court: Amendment is plain and unambiguous; it applies to revenues from home-rule transportation taxes and fees |
| Use of extrinsic evidence | Plain text governs; extrinsic aids unnecessary | County: Text ambiguous; legislative debates, ballot summary, and statutes show no intent to limit home-rule spending | Court: Because text is plain, extrinsic sources need not be consulted and cannot override plain meaning; rejected County’s reliance on debates/ballot summary |
| Remedy / dismissal standard | Complaint pleads declaratory/injunctive relief, accounting, restoration of diverted funds | County: move to dismiss under 2-615/2-619; lack of standing and no constitutional violation | Court: Reversed circuit court dismissal (standing and merit); remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (sets associational-standing test)
- Greer v. Illinois Housing Dev. Auth., 122 Ill. 2d 462 (Ill. 1988) (standing principles; economic injury can support standing)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (traceability and concreteness requirements for standing)
- Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 189 Ill. 2d 200 (Ill. 1999) (illustrative limits on standing where alleged harm was speculative)
- I.C.S. Ill., Inc. v. Waste Mgmt. of Ill., Inc., 403 Ill. App. 3d 211 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (distinguished; subcontractor standing in bidding context)
- Illinois State Toll Highway Auth. v. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 162 Ill. 2d 181 (Ill. 1994) (interpretation of constitutional phrase "as provided by law")
- Oak Park Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Village of Oak Park, 54 Ill. 2d 200 (Ill. 1973) (home-rule limits and meaning of "in the manner provided by law")
- American Iron & Steel Inst. v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 182 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1999) (standing/redressability precedents cited)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Neighborhood Health Ctrs. v. Mathews, 551 F.2d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (standing where government failure to act deprived plaintiffs of an opportunity)
- W. Va. Ass’n of Community Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1570 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (similar standing/lost-opportunity principles)