Park Pet Shop, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 872 F.3d 495

Background

Chicago enacted a “puppy mill” ordinance banning city pet retailers from reselling dogs, cats, or rabbits unless sourced from government-run animal control/care facilities or humane/rescue organizations.
City Council adopted the ordinance to curb support for commercial mill breeders, reduce consumer harm from unhealthy/behaviorally damaged animals, increase shelter adoptions, and lower municipal sheltering/euthanasia costs.
Two Chicago pet stores and an out-of-state dog breeder sued, alleging the ordinance exceeded Chicago’s home-rule authority under the Illinois Constitution and violated the dormant Commerce Clause by impairing interstate commerce.
The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); plaintiffs appealed. The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo, accepting well-pleaded facts as true.
The ordinance applies evenhandedly to all large commercial breeders (in-state and out-of-state) by restricting retail sourcing to shelters and rescues; Chicago’s existing pet-shop licensing and care regulations were broader but did not preempt this source restriction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chicago exceeded home-rule authority under the Illinois Constitution	Ordinance intrudes on an area of statewide concern and is preempted by state law	Animal control/welfare is a traditional area of concurrent local/state regulation; no clear state legislative limit on municipal power exists	Held: Chicago may exercise concurrent home-rule power; ordinance valid under Illinois Constitution
Whether the ordinance facially discriminates against interstate commerce	Ordinance functions as a de facto ban on out-of-state bred pets, burdening interstate sellers	Ordinance applies equally to in-state and out-of-state breeders; it targets large breeders regardless of location	Held: No facial discrimination; law is evenhanded
Whether the ordinance has discriminatory practical effect (disparate impact) triggering Pike balancing	Plaintiffs allege consumers will buy directly from (possibly out-of-state) breeders or unregulated brokers, disproportionately burdening interstate commerce	Effects are not plausibly shown to disadvantage out-of-state sellers; any competitive shift may benefit nearby in- or out-of-state breeders equally	Held: Plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing discriminatory practical effect; Pike balancing not triggered
Standard of review under the dormant Commerce Clause and whether ordinance survives	Plaintiffs urge Pike balancing and factual record	City argues rational-basis review applies because law does not reallocate markets among jurisdictions	Held: Ordinance falls into the non-discriminatory category; rational-basis review applies and the ordinance is rationally related to legitimate local interests; Commerce Clause claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (establishes balancing test for nondiscriminatory laws with incidental burdens on interstate commerce)
Nat’l Paint & Coatings Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 45 F.3d 1124 (7th Cir. 1995) (three-category framework for dormant Commerce Clause analysis)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausibility required to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and inferences at dismissal stage)
Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (discusses Pike and nondiscriminatory burdens on commerce)
United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 550 U.S. 330 (addresses Pike in context of nondiscriminatory local regulation)
City of Chicago v. StubHub, Inc., 979 N.E.2d 844 (Ill.) (Kalodimos factors for home-rule scope and concurrent authority analysis)
County of Cook v. Village of Bridgeview, 8 N.E.3d 1275 (Ill.) (analysis of statewide interest and traditional role in animal control/rabies context)
New York Pet Welfare Ass’n v. City of New York, 850 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal of similar puppy-mill ordinance challenge)