This month’s column discusses the recent Supreme Court of Illinois opinion in Illinois Road and transportation Builders Association, et al., v. The County of Cook, 2022 IL 127126, finding that Plaintiffs, a group of various business and trade associations that represent a variety of sectors in the transportation planning and construction industries, had standing to state a cause of action and that money derived from Cook County Transportation taxes was subject to the transportation taxes and fees lockbox amendment regardless of whether or not the taxing body was a home-rule unit.
Amendment to the State Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution
(Ill. Const. 1970, art. IX, § 11(a))
In the 2016 general election, 80% of voters across the state were in favor of an amendment to the Illinois Constitution preventing funds from transportation-related taxes from being used for any non-transportation related purposes. According to the amendment, any proceeds generated by transportation-related taxes, fees, bonds and licenses may only be used for transportation-related purposes. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IX, § 11(a)).
In 2018, a group of transportation-related trade associations and businesses filed suit claiming the County was using revenue from transportation-related taxes for the Public Safety Fund, a non-transportation-related use, including taxes from:
(1) the Cook County Home Rule County Use Tax Ordinance (see Cook County Code of Ordinances § 74-270 et seq. (adopted Feb. 16, 2011);
(2) the Cook County Retail Sale of Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Tax Ordinance (see id. § 74-470 et seq.);
(3) the Cook County New Motor Vehicle and Trailer Excise Tax Ordinance (see id. § 74-230 et seq.);
(4) the Cook County Home Rule Use Tax Ordinance for Non-Retailer Transfers of Motor Vehicles (see id. § 74-595 et seq. (adopted Nov. 15, 2011));
(5) the Cook County Wheel Tax on Vehicles Ordinance (see id. § 74-550 et seq. (adopted May 21, 2020)); and
(6) the Cook County Parking Lot and Garage Operations Tax Ordinance (see id. § 74-510 et seq. (adopted July 17, 2013)).
Ill. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n v. Cnty. of Cook, 2021 IL App (1st) 190396 (Ill. App. 2021).
Under the Amendment, Plaintiffs alleged that each of these taxes should have been considered transportation-related, yet the County was diverting proceeds from these taxes to the Public Safety Fund. According to Plaintiffs, the Public Safety Fund directly benefits county offices including the sheriff, the state’s attorney, criminal justice, court clerk and department of corrections. As alleged by Plaintiffs, none of these offices are transportation-related.
The trial court granted Defendant’s 2-619.1 Motion to Dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs did not sufficiently state a constitutional violation and lacked standing to plead a sufficient cause of action. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s dismissal finding that Plaintiffs have associational standing.
Associational Standing
Organizations have standing to challenge actions that may allegedly cause them direct harm. An organization may bring a lawsuit on behalf of its representative body. The test for associational standing was adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977). The three part test under Hunt consisted of:
(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right;
(b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and
(c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Id.
The Defendant does not dispute the second and third standard which leaves it to the general standing principles as follows:
"(1) distinct and palpable; (2) fairly traceable to defendant's actions; and (3) substantially likely to be prevented or redressed by the grant of the requested relief. Wexler, 211 Ill. 2d at 23." Ill. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n v. Cnty. of Cook, 2021 IL App (1st) 190396 (Ill. App. 2021)
The County argued that Plaintiffs lack standing as it is purely speculative whether Plaintiffs would actually receive any contracts or benefit from projects related to the transportation tax funds. However, the appellate court agreed with Plaintiffs stating:
“To be sure, standing cannot be founded on a "highly attenuated chain of possibilities." Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398, 410 (2013). But neither is certainty required. Particularly when the injury to a plaintiff is the loss of opportunity to obtain a benefit due to the government's failure to perform a required act—here, sequestering transportation funds—it is rarely possible to know with any confidence what might have happened, had the government performed that act, much less what precisely will happen in the future if the improper conduct is corrected. If such certainty were required, the doctrine of standing would substantially reduce, if not altogether eliminate, entire categories of lawsuits. And, as we explain below, that is not how we read the case law.” Ill. Rd. & Transp. Builders Ass'n v. Cnty. of Cook, 2021 IL App (1st) 190396 (Ill. App. 2021)
Plaintiffs’ complaint, as transportation-related businesses, is greater than any complaint common to the general public and has sufficient standing. Id.
The Language of the Amendment is Plain and Unambiguous
The County additionally argued that the Amendment is ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence is necessary to properly interpret the amendment. “[I]f a [provision] is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more different ways, the statute will be deemed ambiguous.” Solon v. Midwest Medical Records Ass’n, 236 Ill. 2d 433, 440 (2010). If the court does not deem the Amendment ambiguous, then the court has no reason to look to extrinsic sources to determine the interpretation. Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association, et al., v. The County of Cook, 2022 IL 127126. The County contends that certain sponsors of the Amendment agreed that the Amendment was ambiguous and that it was not intended to apply to home rule-taxes. However, the court need not look to such legislative intent gleamed from extrinsic sources should the court find that the plain meaning is unambiguous:
“The plain language of a provision “remains the best indication” of intent. In re Marriage of Dynako, 2021 IL 126835, ¶ 14. The County attempted to create ambiguity by discussing these extrinsic sources at the outset of its brief. However, “[w]here the language is clear and unambiguous, we must apply the [provision] without resort to further aids of statutory construction.” Andrews v. Kowa Printing Corp., 217 Ill. 2d 101, 106 (2005).
Finding Plaintiffs had associational standing and that the funds generated under the Transportation Taxes were properly subject to the Amendment, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of the complaint, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Comments