Local Government Law

In action seeking to enjoin defendant-fire district from implementing ordinance that required plaintiff’s customers to have direct-connect/wireless connections for fire alarm services on defendant’s control center board, Dist. Ct. erred, as matter of state law, in entering permanent injunction that precluded defendant from generating said requirements since said requirements are consistent with section 11 of Ill. Fire Protection District Act and with prevailing national standards under Nat’l. Fire Protection Association. Dist. Ct. did not err in entering permanent injunction as to portion of ordinance that required plaintiff’s customers to use defendant and its one chosen private vendor as sole suppliers of fire alarm equipment and services.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-City’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant deprived plaintiff-certified minority-owned business enterprise (MBE) of its property without due process by drastically reducing its purchases from defendant for five-month period, which caused plaintiff to incur net loss during same period. Instant five-month reduction was insufficient to constitute destruction of plaintiff’s MBE certificate since defendant still awarded plaintiff new business and continued existing contracts that totaled $939,000. Fact that plaintiff incurred temporary loss while defendant investigated possibility that plaintiff had violated MBE process by becoming broker, as opposed to wholesaler, did not require different result where plaintiff had failed to show that defendant violated any term of plaintiff’s MBE certification during its investigation of plaintiff.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants-city officials' motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity in plaintiffs' section 1983 action alleging that defendant-mayor's refusal to permit one plaintiff opportunity to speak during city council meeting unless plaintiff apologized to city employee for verbal confrontation that plaintiff had with employee during prior public rally regarding amendment to towing ordinance violated said plaintiff's First Amendment rights where instant blanket refusal constituted impermissible content-based restriction. Fact that mayor allowed others to criticize said ordinance at counsel meeting was immaterial to instant claim, even though mayor believed that refusal was appropriate given his belief that plaintiff had threatened said city employee. Moreover, Dist. Ct. properly denied defendant-Police Chief's assertion of qualified immunity on different plaintiff's claim that imposition of $1,500 fee for plaintiff's use of city park to hold protest rally with respect to towing ordinance constituted violation of her free-speech rights where: (1) instant fee arose out of defendant's estimation of increased police force costs required for monitoring said rally; (2) defendant conceded that costs would be lower if rally were in favor of said ordinance; (3) govt. cannot impose financial burden on speakers based on content of their speech; and (4) defendant imposed instant fee requirement on plaintiff shortly after she announced intent to hold rally, while failing to apply said fee requirement in approximately 500 prior events. (Partial dissent filed.)