Strauss v. City of Chicago

Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Chicago to challenge a zoning ordinance that changed the types of establishments allowed in a building owned by the plaintiff as well as claims based on the conduct of the local city council alderman. The circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety and with prejudice under section 2-619 by finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for substantive due process or equal protection violations and that the allegations of the complaint, which referenced noise levels and drug and alcohol abuse at the subject property, satisfied the rational basis test. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the plain language of section 2-201 of the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act provided absolute immunity to the city. The Supreme Court also affirmed, but found that the alderman was immune because his conduct reflected a determination of policy and the exercise of discretion and because he was not liable due to discretionary immunity, the City also was not liable. (THEIS, NEVILLE, MICHAEL J. BURKE, and CARTER, concurring. ANNE M. BURKE and HOLDER WHITE took no part in the decision.)