Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/1998

Home

Page 2 -- December 10, 1997 Z.B. Personal Liability M Church sues alderman for proposing zoning change to prohibit church use Ira Iglesia de la Biblia Abierta v. William Banks, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 97-1041 (1997) The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indi- ana, and Wisconsin. Banks was a Chicago alderman and chairman of the city council's Committee on Zoning. Ira Iglesia de la Biblia Abierta was a religious organization with a predominantly Hispanic congregation. The organization contracted to buy property in Chicago, intending to use it for a church. Under the city zoning law, the property could be used for a church provided the owner got a special use permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The church applied for a special use permit, and the board scheduled a hearing. Before the hearing, Banks introduced an ordinance to rezone the property to prohibit its use as a church. The board postponed its hearing at Banks' re- quest. The zoning committee voted unanimously to recommend passage of the ordinance, and before the board voted on the church's permit request, the city council passed the ordinance. The church sued Banks and the city, alleging civil rights violations and viola- tions of the First and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Banks and the city asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. They claimed Banks was entitled to absolute legislative immunity for his participation in the rezoning of the property. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, state legislators were absolutely privileged in their legislative acts in any civil lawsuit against them for damages. State courts had extended legislative immunity to local legislators. Banks claimed introducing and voting for legislation were legislative activities that were entitled to immunity. According to Banks, the rezoning ordinance constituted legislation for immunity purposes. Banks further claimed his request for the board to delay its hearing was also a legislative function entitled to immunity. He argued his request was essential to preserve the city council's legislative prerogatives. The church claimed Banks wasn't entitled to immunity. It argued he engaged in conduct beyond the narrow scope of "core" legislative activity protected by immunity. It also claimed the passage of a rezoning ordinance didn't qualify as legislation, but rather as an administrative or executive act. The church said Banks knew it had entered into a contract to buy the property and had applied for a special use permit. It argued, therefore, that his participation was not legislative, so it was not entitled to immunity. Finally, the church claimed Banks' request that the board delay its hearing went beyond the narrow scope of protected legislative activity. The court refused to dismiss the claims. It agreed that introducing and voting on legislation were protected legislative activities, but it questioned whether Banks' conduct fell outside the core of protected activity. The city and Banks appealed.