Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2019

Home

Zoning Bulletin jurisdictional because the text and context of the TCA, and historical treatment of timing requirements in similar statutes, did "not reveal a clear intent from Congress to make the review provision's timing requirement jurisdictional." Finally, the court also concluded that, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15(d), an untimely supple- mental complaint (such as that filed by T Mobile here) can, by relating back, cure an initial complaint that was unripe. See also: Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 903 F.3d 65 (3d Cir: 2018). See also: T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., 135 S. Ct. 808, 190 L. Ed. 2d 679 (2015). See also: Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center; 568 U.S. 145, 133 S. Ct. 817, 184 L. Ed. 2d 627 (2013). See also: Musacchio v. U.S., 136 S. Ct. 709, 193 L. Ed. 2d 639 (2016). Case Note: T Mobile had asserted that there should be a new requirement imposed on localities to address a locality's failure to act (and timely issue a final decision). The court found that the TCA's "shot clock" —which allows a wireless carrier to sue for a local- ity's failure to act —was sufficient as it was the policy choice of Congress that the court was not `free to change." StandingNalidity of Regulations/Short-term rentals —Individuals and organization challenge constitutionality of city's shared housing ordinance Court evaluates its jurisdiction to hear challenge based on standing of individuals and organization Citation: Keep Chicago Livable v. City of Chicago, 2019 WL 178566 (7th Cir. 2019) The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indi- ana, and Wisconsin. SEVENTH CIRCUIT (ILLINOIS) (01/14/19)—This case addressed the issue of whether individuals and/or an organization had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a city's shared housing ordinance. The Background/Facts: In 2016, the City of Chicago (the "City") passed an ordinance (the "Shared Housing Ordinance" or the "Ordinance") to regulate home -sharing activities where property owners ("hosts") rent rooms and February 25, 2019 I Volume 13 I Issue 4 houses for temporary stays. The Ordinance requires hosts to register with the City and acquire a business license before listing their units for rent. City -approved hosts are also subject to health, safety, and reporting requirements. Keep Chicago Livable is a non-profit organization that focuses on educating home -sharing hosts. Keep Chicago. Livable and six individuals (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") challenged the constitutionality of the City's Shared Hous- ing Ordinance. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Ordinance "violated the First Amendment by impermissibly restrain- ing non-commercial speech as well as by compelling speech through content -based disclosure requirements," and by offending their "right to intimate and expressive association." They also alleged that the Ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause (of the United States Constitu- tion) by "arbitrarily treating shared -housing arrangements differently than guest suite and hotel rentals." Further, they alleged that the Ordinance was "void for vagueness" under the Due Process Clause (of the United States Constitution). The Plaintiffs asked the district court to issue a prelimi- nary injunction on their claims. The district court denied that request. Among other things, the district court found that the Ordinance regulated economic activity, not speech. The Plaintiffs appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court vacated, and matter remanded. The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that the district court had failed to determine whether any of the Plaintiffs had "the requisite injury or threat of injury to establish the standing necessary for federal subject matter jurisdiction." Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's determination on the preliminary injunction issue, and remanded the matter for a determination of standing. The Seventh Circuit explained that standing (i.e., the legal right to bring a judicial action) is a prerequisite to federal jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdiction of the federal courts to evaluate the challenges brought under federal law). The court further explained that individual standing requires a "threefold demonstration" of: "(1) an injury in -fact; (2) fairly traceable to the defendant's action; and (3) capable of being redressed by a favorable decision from the court." The alleged injury must be both "concrete and particular- ized" as well as "actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical," said the court. Further, the court explained that a different analysis is required to determine organiza- tional standing. When an organization —such as Keep Chicago Livable —brings an action to remedy an injury to the organization, the organization must allege a concrete and particularized injury to the organization, said the court. When an organization brings an action on behalf of its members, the court explained that it must show that: (1) "its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right"; (2) "the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose"; and (3) "neither the claim . asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in their lawsuit." Here, the court could not conclude that any of the Plaintiffs —the six individuals or Keep Chicago Livable © 2019 Thomson Reuters 5