Swart v. City of Chi.

Decision Date20 February 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 19-cv-6213
Citation440 F.Supp.3d 926
Parties Matt SWART, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

John W. Mauck, Sorin Adrian Leahu, Mauck & Baker, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew S. Mine, Bradley Gordon Wilson, John Lawrence Hendricks, Oscar Pina, City of Chicago, Law Department, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John Robert Blakey, United States District Judge

This case centers around Millennium Park, a beloved public park and major tourist attraction for the City of Chicago. The City views the Park as a unique space—one that showcases world-class art, music, architecture, and landscape design. Accordingly, the City enacted restrictions it claims protects the Park's aesthetic integrity.

Despite these good intentions, however, the City's restrictions prohibit reasonable forms of expression in large areas of the Park. As a result, Plaintiffs Matt Swart, Jeremy Chong, Gabriel Emerson, and Caeden Hood sued the City, claiming the City's restrictions violate their First Amendment rights to evangelize and disseminate religious literature. Intervenors Elizabeth Norden, Tyler Brumfield, Doris Davenport, and William Morgan also challenge the restrictions, claiming that the restrictions unconstitutionally limit their right to circulate petitions in the Park. Both groups move for a preliminary injunction against the City, asking this Court to enjoin the City from enforcing those restrictions. [7] [35].

For the reasons stated below, this Court grants their motions.

I. Background
A. Procedural History

On September 18, 2019, Plaintiffs—four Wheaton College students—filed their complaint against the City. [1]. Plaintiffs, members of an outreach ministry known as the Chicago Evangelism Team, claim that the City's newly enacted rules governing the Park violate their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech (Count I) and free exercise of religion (Count II), as well as the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Count III). Id. ¶¶ 46–64. That same day, Plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction on their freedom of speech claim, urging this Court to enjoin the City's enforcement of the new rules. [7]. A few weeks later, on October 8, 2019, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order on the same claim. [22].

On October 10, 2019, this Court granted leave for Elizabeth Norden, Tyler Brumfield, Doris Davenport, and William Morgan to file a complaint in intervention in this case. Intervenors, individuals who regularly circulate referendum petitions in the Park, assert a two-count complaint against the City for unconstitutionally restricting their freedom of speech and petition (Count I) and for violating their right of referendum under Illinois law (Count II). [18-1] ¶¶ 17–29. Intervenors subsequently also moved for a preliminary injunction against the City. [35].

This Court held an evidentiary hearing on the pending motions on November 7 and 8, 2019. The parties then presented closing arguments on November 20, 2019.

B. Factual Background
1. Millennium Park

The Park opened in 2004. [48-2] at 48. It sits on 24.5 acres of land bordered by Michigan Avenue, Monroe Street, Randolph Street, and Columbus Drive. Id. at 43, 51. The Park is free and open to the public and contains multiple green spaces and recreation areas. Id. at 157–58. The City's website refers to Millennium Park as a "public park" and describes it as a "town square." Id. at 95, 104.

Scott Stewart, Executive Director of the Millennium Park Foundation (the Foundation), testified at the evidentiary hearing. Formed in 1998, the Foundation constitutes a private non-profit organization created to raise private funds to construct the Park. [48-2] at 41. The Foundation used those private funds to engage artists and architects to complete the various artistic components of the Park before ultimately donating the Park back to the City. Id. at 44. The Foundation remains partnered with the City and serves as the chief curators of the public art within the Park. Id. Specifically, the Foundation reserves the right to voice any objections to the City's Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events (DCASE) regarding the City's curation of arts and programming in the Park; the City, however, possesses no contractual obligation to act upon or heed those objections. Id. at 97.

In Stewart's opinion, differences exist between the Park and other Chicago parks, the most important one being that the City intends the Park to serve as an artistic and architectural showcase. Id. at 49. According to Stewart, the Park consists not of a single, undifferentiated space, but rather of several subspaces (or "rooms") differentiated by, among other things, lines of trees or other foliage, changes in topography, and changes in the color of walking surfaces. Id. at 43. A map of the Park below depicts the Park and the location of the various "rooms," as conceptualized by the City:

[1] at 39. For instance, the City considers Cloud Gate—the "room" containing the iconic Bean—differentiated from the other "rooms" by a change in elevation. [48-2] at 47. Similarly, the City considers Lurie Garden separated from other "rooms" by the existence of two large shoulder hedges on its west side. Id. at 53. Another one of the so-called "rooms," the Great Lawn, primarily functions as a place for overflow audiences to gather during (and just before) special events held at the Jay Pritzker Pavilion. [48-2] at 59. Some of those events include the Jazz Music Festival, movies, and orchestral concerts. Id. Unless open for an event, the Great Lawn remains closed-off by a yellow rope surrounding its perimeter. Id. Notwithstanding, Stewart concedes that the Park is otherwise a "thoroughfare." Id. at 86.

2. Plaintiffs and Intervenors

Intervenors regularly circulate petitions within the City. [18-1] ¶¶ 9–10. Norden, for example, has gathered signatures inside the Park (including on the Great Lawn when open to the public) in support of binding referendums for the city-wide ballot. [36-1] at 2. Norden says she experienced multiple episodes of harassment by Park security, staff, and officials, including times when they prevented her from circulating petitions. Id.

From 2016 to 2018, Intervenor Morgan habitually attended events in the Park to collect signatures; he says that on several occasions Park officials approached him and asked him to leave. Id. at 6–7. The two other Intervenors, Davenport and Brumfield, circulated petitions between June and August 2018. [36-1] at 10, 13. On one occasion in June 2018, Park employees refused them access to the Jay Pritzker Pavilion. Id. at 11, 13. When Davenport attempted to proceed, officials threatened to arrest her. Id. at 11. Ultimately, Park officials informed Davenport she could proceed with collecting signatures, so long as she agreed to cease before any movie or performance began. Id.

All four Intervenors expressed an honest desire to continue to gather petition signatures in the Park in the future. [36-1] at 4, 8, 14; [48-1] at 47. Indeed, at the hearing, Davenport testified that she considers the Great Lawn to be the best location in the entire City to collect signatures. [48-1] at 47.

Plaintiffs, members of the Chicago Evangelism Team, engage in open air evangelizing and dissemination of religious literature every Friday. Id. at 7–8; [1] ¶¶ 5–8. As Plaintiff Chong testified, open air evangelizing involves standing up and "shar[ing] the gospel," an event that can last several minutes at a time. [48-1] at 12–13. The Team engages in these activities in various downtown Chicago locations, including around the Chicago Theatre and Block 37. Id. at 14–15. But the Team considers the Park—and especially the area surrounding the Bean—to be the most effective place to share their message because they can reach larger audiences. Id. at 8–9, 20–21.

In December 2018, Swart, Hood, and other members of the Chicago Evangelism Team gathered at the Park to engage in open air evangelism and distribute religious literature. [1] ¶ 16. Park security approached Plaintiffs and informed them they were prohibited from disseminating literature. Id. ¶ 17. The students ceased distributing their literature, id. , and then Hood began to evangelize, id. ¶ 18. After a few minutes, Park security again approached Plaintiffs and informed them they had to stop evangelizing. Id. At that point, Swart informed security staff that because they were on a public sidewalk, they had the right to continue speaking. Id. ¶ 19. A security guard insisted he was "just doing his job," and informed the students they could speak to his supervisor. Id. ¶ 20. Based on the guard's intervention, these students then ceased their evangelism activities. Id. ¶ 21.

About ten minutes later, Chong arrived at the Park, and the students informed him what had just transpired. Id. ¶ 22. Chong nonetheless began evangelizing. Id. ¶ 23. Park security then approached Chong and directed him to stop. Id. ¶ 24. Chong asked to speak with a supervisor. Id. Soon thereafter, two Park supervisors arrived and informed the students that they were in violation of a Chicago ordinance prohibiting solicitation on the sidewalk between Randolph and Roosevelt Streets. Id. ¶ 25.

Members of the Chicago Evangelism Team returned to the Park in the subsequent weeks; they again attempted to evangelize but Park security guards prohibited them from doing so. Id. ¶¶ 27–28. On one occasion, Park employees prohibited them from evangelizing near the Bean. Id. ¶ 30. On another occasion, a Park employee informed them they could not discuss religion in the Park and ordered them to leave the Park if they wished to speak about religion. Id. ¶ 31.

On April 5, 2019, Chong again went to the Park to evangelize; at that time, Public Recreational Operations Manager Christopher Deans approached Chong and provided him with newly enacted rules governing the Park. Id. ¶ 32. Deans...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ill. Republican Party v. Pritzker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • July 2, 2020
    ...than fifty people is permissible; if the content is not religious, such gathering is impermissible. See Swart v. City of Chicago , 440 F.Supp.3d 926, 938–39 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (assessing the speaker's intent requires the City to evaluate the content of the speech, making its enforcement conte......
  • Ind. Civil Liberties Union Found., Inc. v. Superintendent, Ind. State Police
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • June 30, 2020
    ...to show that [the] restrictions remain ‘narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest.’ " Swart v. City of Chicago , 440 F. Supp.3d 926, 941 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (quoting Entm't Software Ass'n v. Blagojevich , 469 F.3d 641, 646 (7th Cir. 2006) ). A restriction will not pass stri......
  • Freedom Found. v. Wash. Dep't of Ecology
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 21, 2020
    ...the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 1. Freedom Foundation relies heavily on Swart v. City of Chicago, 440 F. Supp. 3d 926 (N.D. Ill. 2020), to argue that Ecology's speech restrictive policies are unreasonable because they are open to broad enforcement di......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT