385 F. Supp. 3d 662
E.D. Ill.2019Background
- The Barack Obama Foundation selected a 19.3-acre site inside Jackson Park (3.5% of the park) for the Obama Presidential Center (OPC); the City will own the site and the Foundation will construct and maintain improvements under a 99-year Use Agreement.
- The Use Agreement grants the Foundation rights to construct, occupy, operate, and maintain buildings and green space; Foundation pays $10 consideration, builds at its expense, and transfers buildings to the City on completion.
- The City and Chicago Park District approved intergovernmental transfers and ordinances (zoning/planned development, Lakefront Protection approval, Operating Ordinance, vacating certain internal streets) after public hearings; DPD issued a study finding public and economic benefits.
- Plaintiffs (Protect Our Parks and individuals) sued asserting five claims: §1983 due process (procedural), breach of the public trust (state law), ultra vires acts (state law), declaratory judgment re: Museum Act applicability, and special legislation.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts; the Court granted summary judgment to defendants on Counts I–V, holding the Museum Act and related approvals authorize the OPC and that the project does not violate the public trust or other challenged statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the OPC violate the Illinois public trust doctrine? | Jackson Park is public-trust land and diversion to the OPC unlawfully restricts public parkland and benefits private interests; legislature didn’t specifically authorize this site/transaction. | Museum Act and other statutes authorize museums/presidential centers in parks; project provides public benefits; City retains ownership and control. | Court: No public-trust violation. The Museum Act evidences sufficient legislative intent (Paepcke standard); OPC survives higher scrutiny as well. |
| Is Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim (§1983) valid based on public-trust/delegation concerns or a Fifth Amendment taking? | The City’s actions deprived plaintiffs of protected property interests without adequate process; transfers and Use Agreement exceeded statutory authority. | No cognizable federal taking (public land); legislative authorization exists so no deprivation; federal due process does not redress alleged state-law violations alone. | Court: Due process claim fails. No Fifth Amendment taking; procedural due process fails because state authorization exists and Plaintiffs rely on state-law errors. |
| Did City/Park District act ultra vires under Illinois law (Museum Act; Property Transfer Act)? | Museum Act does not authorize green/open space or the Use Agreement structure; Property Transfer Act forbids transfers unless transferee will itself use/occupy the land. | Museum Act’s text contemplates museum facilities (including grounds); Property Transfer Act and intergovernmental/constitutional provisions permit transfer and contracting; Use Agreement is authorized. | Court: Ultra vires claim rejected. Museum Act authorizes museum facilities/grounds; Property Transfer Act does not prohibit the transfers/agreements at issue. |
| Are the 2016 amendments to the Museum Act inapplicable or unconstitutional as special legislation / retroactive? | The amendments were not declaratory of existing law and constitute special/local legislation favoring a class (presidential centers). | The City enacted ordinances after the amendment; the amendment did not operate retroactively as applied here; the amendment does not create an exclusionary classification. | Court: Claims fail. No retroactivity problem; special legislation challenge fails because listing "presidential centers" is not an improper exclusive classification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1892) (classic public trust doctrine foundation regarding submerged lands)
- Paepcke v. Public Building Comm’n of Chicago, 263 N.E.2d 11 (Ill. 1970) (Illinois Supreme Court standard for legislative authorization on never-submerged parkland diversions)
- Friends of the Parks v. Chicago Park Dist., 786 N.E.2d 161 (Ill. 2003) (public trust test for formerly submerged land; benefits/authorization inquiry)
- People ex rel. Scott v. Chicago Park Dist., 360 N.E.2d 773 (Ill. 1976) (invalidating transfer of submerged land when primary purpose favored private interests)
- Clement v. Chicago Park Dist., 449 N.E.2d 81 (Ill. 1983) (applying public trust/Wisconsin factors to allow nontraditional park uses when public control, benefits, and small diminution shown)
- Fairbank v. Stratton, 152 N.E.2d 569 (Ill. 1958) (upholding structures on submerged land where public interest demonstrated)
- Lake Michigan Fed’n v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 742 F. Supp. 441 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (discussion of public trust doctrine across land types)