Friends of the Parks v. Chicago Parks District
Illinois Supreme Court
786 N.E.2d 161 (2003)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The City of Chicago erected its Soldiers Field stadium on city-owned park land. The stadium opened as a public-events venue in 1924. For decades, the stadium also hosted the privately owned Bears football team’s home games. In 1970, Illinois adopted a constitution incorporating the public-purpose and public-trust doctrines, as well as a “three-readings” requirement mandating that new laws receive legislative consideration on three separate days. In 2001 the Chicago Parks District (district) (defendant), with the Bears’ support, persuaded the Illinois legislature to enact an enabling statute authorizing the stadium’s publicly financed renovation. Friends of the Parks (Friends) (plaintiff) sued, contending that the statute primarily served the Bears’ private interests, thereby unconstitutionally violating the public-purpose and public-trust doctrines. Friends also contended that the legislature unconstitutionally enacted the statute without complying with the three-readings requirement. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the statute contained a legislative finding that the statute complied with all constitutional requirements and would primarily benefit the public by facilitating public events and promoting economic growth.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kilbride, J.)
Concurrence (Freeman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 829,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.