Find Legal Information

Docket No. 93978-Agenda 37-September 2002.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. JOSEPH E.BIRKETT et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. THE

CITY OF CHICAGO, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

Opinion filed October 18, 2002.

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs, Joseph E. Birkett, State's Attorney of Du PageCounty, on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, the Countyof Du Page, the Village of Bensenville, the City of Elmhurst, andthe City of Wood Dale, filed a two-count amended complaintseeking (1) a declaration that the City of Chicago was constructingcertain improvements at O'Hare International Airport in violationof the Illinois Aeronautics Act (Act) (620 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West2000)); and (2) an order enjoining the further construction of anysuch improvements until such time as the City complied with theAct. The circuit court of Du Page County entered summaryjudgment in the City's favor and denied plaintiffs' motion forpartial summary judgment and injunctive relief. In addition, thetrial court denied the request of United States Congressman HenryJ. Hyde and State Senator James "Pate" Philip to intervene asplaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed, and the appellate court concludedthat entry of summary judgment in the City's favor was erroneous.329 Ill. App. 3d 477. We granted the City's petition for leave toappeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a). In addition, we allowed thesubmission of several amicus curie briefs supporting both the Cityand plaintiffs. 155 Ill. 2d R. 345.

BACKGROUND

Section 47 of the Act (620 ILCS 5/47 (West 2000)) prohibitsa municipality from making "any alteration or extension of anexisting airport *** for which a certificate of approval has notbeen issued by the [Illinois Department of Transportation(IDOT)]." As the owner and operator of O'Hare InternationalAirport, the City routinely undertakes a wide variety of projectsdesigned to improve airport facilities. These projects generally fallinto one of three categories: (1) "airfield" development, whichincludes runways, taxiways, aprons, hold pads, cargo areas,hangars, and other areas designed to facilitate the movement ofaircraft; (2) "terminal" development, which includes terminals,concourses, and other areas designed to facilitate the movement ofpeople through the airport; and (3) "landside" or "groundtransportation" development, which includes roadways, parkingfacilities, mass transit, and other facilities designed to facilitate themovement of vehicles to and from the airport terminals. The Cityadmits that it previously has undertaken extensive terminal andground transportation improvements at O'Hare without firstobtaining a certificate of approval from IDOT and that it intendsto continue undertaking such improvements in the future. Theseimprovements include new and renovated terminals, renovatedconcourses, new and renovated roadways, and expanded parkingfacilities.

On December 22, 1995, plaintiffs filed a two-count amendedcomplaint against the City. Count I, an action in quo warranto,alleged that, in clear violation of section 47, the City wasundertaking substantial terminal and ground transportationimprovements at O'Hare without first obtaining a certificate ofapproval from IDOT. Specifically, count I alleged that the City"currently has under construction tens of millions of dollars ofphysical alterations to [O'Hare]" and "in the past has constructed,or plans to build several hundred million dollars of additionalconstruction projects at O'Hare." Accordingly, plaintiffs soughtboth a declaration that the City's actions were without authorityand an order prohibiting the City from "constructing current andproposed alterations at O'Hare" without first obtaining acertificate of approval from IDOT. Count II, which was broughtspecifically under the Act, incorporated all of the allegations ofcount I, adding that "the intended primary purpose of much of therecent, ongoing and planned construction at O'Hare Airport is toincrementally expand the capacity of the airport" both to thedetriment of neighboring communities and without the approvalof IDOT. Count II sought an order prohibiting the "continuedconstruction of current and proposed piecemeal elements ofChicago's construction program at O'Hare" without first obtaininga certificate of approval from IDOT.

On December 16, 1996, the trial court allowed CongressmanHyde and State Senator Philip to intervene as plaintiffs. The trialcourt later vacated this decision, concluding that CongressmanHyde and Senator Philip did not have standing to intervene.

On June 6, 2000, the City filed a motion for summaryjudgment. Plaintiffs responded with a cross-motion seeking bothpartial summary judgment and an injunction against "furtherphysical alterations at O'Hare until these alterations are submittedto the State for a certificate of approval, and the State has issueda certificate of approval." After hearing arguments and reviewingthe parties' briefs, the trial court entered summary judgment in theCity's favor and denied plaintiffs' motion in its entirety. In soruling, the trial court explained that the phrase "any alteration orextension of an existing airport," as set forth in section 47, isambiguous. After considering both the Act as a whole and theIDOT regulation construing section 47 (see 92 Ill. Adm. Code