Idris v. City of Chicago, Ill.

• Decision Date: 05 January 2009
• Docket Number: No. 08-1363.,08-1363.
• Citation: 552 F.3d 564
• Parties: Parveen IDRIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

552 F.3d 564

Parveen IDRIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-1363.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued November 5, 2008.

Decided January 5, 2009.

Robert A. Holstein, Holstein Law Offices, Chicago, IL, Corey S. Berman (argued), Holstein, Mack & Klein, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Christopher S. Norborg, City of Chicago Law Department, Chicago, IL, Michael L. McCluggage, Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and RIPPLE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.

In 2003 the City of Chicago began to install cameras to take photos of cars that run red lights and make illegal turns. An ordinance provides that the car's owner is liable for the $90 fine no matter who was driving-though for leases by auto manufacturers or dealers (or other leases on file with the Department of Revenue), the lessee rather than the owner is responsible. Chicago Code § 9-102-020(3). Recipients of citations can defend by showing that the car or its plates had been stolen, or the vehicle sold; they may not defend by showing that someone else was driving. Plaintiffs are auto owners who say that they have been fined even though someone else was driving their cars at the time. They maintain that Chicago's system violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution's fourteenth amendment. The district court held otherwise and entered summary judgment for the defendants. 2008 WL 182248, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3933 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 16, 2008).

Because all plaintiffs had an opportunity to present their contentions in the administrative process, and then to state court, the City might well have had a good argument that claim preclusion bars this litigation. Litigants can't reserve federal issues for a federal court. See San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 125 S.Ct. 2491, 162 L.Ed.2d 315 (2005). But the City has not advanced this affirmative defense. See David P. Currie, Res Judicata: The Neglected Defense, 45 U. Chi. L.Rev. 317 (1978). Nor has the City argued that a federal court should abstain from interfering in the citation-adjudication system. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and its successors. If the case were at all complex, we might abstain whether asked to do so or not—for a litigant can't wait out state processes and then turn to federal court, see Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975)—but the City's enforcement apparatus is simple and the federal law straightforward.

Plaintiffs contend that vicarious liability offends the substantive component of the due process clause, but that argument is a dud. Substantive due process depends on the existence of a fundamental liberty interest, see Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719-22, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997), and no one has a fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a public street. The interest at stake is a $90 fine for a traffic infraction, and the Supreme Court has never held that a property interest so modest is a fundamental right. Plaintiffs insist that, if a law is arbitrary or capricious, then the absence of a fundamental right does not matter. They do not cite any decision of the Supreme Court for that proposition; none is to be found. Glucksberg and the Court's other opinions are adamant: only state action that impinges on fundamental rights is subject to evaluation under substantive due process. If a law is arbitrary, then it might flunk the rational-basis test that applies to all legislation, but this differs (fundamentally) from substantive due process. See National Paint & Coatings Ass'n v. Chicago, 45 F.3d 1124 (7th Cir.1995); Saukstelis v. Chicago, 932 F.2d 1171 (7th Cir.1991).

Is it rational to fine the owner rather than the driver? Certainly so. A camera can show reliably which cars and trucks go through red lights but is less likely to show who was driving. That would make it easy for owners to point the finger at friends or children—and essentially impossible for the City to prove otherwise. A system of photographic evidence reduces the costs of law enforcement and increases the proportion of all traffic offenses that are detected; these benefits can be achieved only if the owner is held responsible.

This need not mean that the owner bears the economic loss; an owner can insist that the driver reimburse the outlay if he wants to use the car again (or maintain the friendship). Legal systems often achieve deterrence by imposing fines or penalties without fault. Consider, for example, a system that subjects to forfeiture any car used in committing a crime, even though the owner may have had nothing to do with the offense. Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442, 116 S.Ct. 994, 134 L.Ed.2d 68 (1996), holds that such a system is constitutional, because it increases owners' vigilance. Similarly, Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, 122 S.Ct. 1230, 152 L.Ed.2d 258 (2002), holds that it is constitutional to evict a tenant from public housing because of a guest's misbehavior; the threat of eviction induces owners to exercise control over their guests (and not to invite people whose conduct they will be unable to influence). United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 105 S.Ct. 687, 83 L.Ed.2d 622 (1985), offers yet another example. The Court held it proper to impose penalties on a taxpayer whose return is false, even when an attorney or accountant is responsible for the error; the Court concluded that the threat of a penalty will cause taxpayers to choose their advisers more carefully— and, when the taxpayer is the victim of an expert's blunder, a malpractice suit will shift the expense to the person whose errors led to the exaction. Fining a car's owner is rational for the same reasons: Owners will take more care when lending their cars, and often they can pass the expense on to the real wrongdoer.

That the City's system raises revenue does not condemn it. Taxes, whether on liquor or on running red lights, are valid municipal endeavors. Like any other...