been nuns we would not be here today because these men would have been allowed to stay in the convent building and the catholic properties just like that mandalit sisters have been since the one nine hundred fifty s these are existing buildings and in two thousand and eleven the city a llowed fordable covering housing to move in start the operation and the city was working favorably with affordable recovery housing in terms of the developer the remodeling of the buildings the installation of a fire alarm system they allowed the mallet sisters and afforded recovery to expend one hundred thirty thousand dollars to install a fire alarm system he allowed men to move into the building and then in may two thousand and twelve we had a the friday before memorial day weekend we got a letter from the chief fire chief saying you've got five days to move all these men out and unfortunately and tragically for those men whose fragile lives and were in the process of the recovery lost their lives because they were evicted from the recovery home in which they were saying i'd like to focus what happened to who believe the affidavit that we submitted they overdosed on heroin one and his mother's bathroom one on the streets i think one wife of one of the men threatened to sue affordable recovery for affecting her spouse and so again i don't we don't know if they would have also passed away had they been in the recovery home but we know that given the fragile nature of man and in recovery this was the situation that we had we had men in recovery we were operating and while the situation was very friendly with the municipality mayor was very supportive of the ministry and mr dunne we've used the c e o of portable was working hand in hand with the building commissioner saying well here's here's what we think we should do here's our plan here's our proposal the building commissioner was saying no prior to the fire alarm if if if these that these men were nuns we wouldn't be here today the men that the nuns are still in the property and this is only allowed for a convent and so really we were just allowing these people with with with their disability with the i'll call it drug addiction to provide the same home the same safe place off off the streets for them to stay by you just seeking in attorneys fees no we are seeking damages your honor and i think there's really  never reopened because blue island even after we were licensed by the say september eleventh two thousand and thirteen and we're the district court held that we have no obligation to retrofit the building that's what they just report helt even after that point for another over a year wh  and still didn't let us reopen the hall and so had the attorneys not gotten involved with this ministry would be here and the district court you prevailed under state law correct yes i believe so yes we see combinations of state laws and federal claims with the shifting statutes you know that are combined fairly often for example one might imagine an excessive force case against a police officer and his employer the city where you could wind up with a prevailing on the state law claim of losing on the federal court in those situations where you were didn't arise you were feeds before and i think that's what the district court was saying is is that upon its reading you know and i think that's my struggle i mean i'm asking you no not not that i'm aware of other than i would point to the supreme court decision the texas be garland because that points to the fact that we succeeded on a major part of the litigation you're relying on the southwestern bell case you're referring to yes i just heard i read that but i just  a little surprised that we don't have more law addressing this abuse and i would think this would come up fairly often well i think yeah i think the cases where you survive done or you succeed  another state claim but you and the court did not reach the federal claims and i think that what the district court was saying is that because he went ahead and reached all the federal claims and threw all of those out that we weren't entitled to fees because we didn't know it's not exactly the same thing because you're seeking additional relief under federal law that you could not obtain under state law correct you're seeking the damages yes that might be available under our lupo's you're seeking fair housing act relief right yesterday and all that's quite different from the narrow state law claim around which you prevailed and on which state law does not provide for fees right correct ok and going back to  the substantial burden i think i would like to focus the time i have the substantial burden analysis because under any test that this court has recognized let alone that with the supreme court has lied in both the whole case and the hobby lobby case  believe that it is a substantial burden on a ministry to shut it down after it's already operational and i think that that's what this court recognized in the world average decision is when you deny an organization the use of its building to accomplish its objectives that can't be said i think in the courts where it's to be an insubstantial bird and i think that that that that's clearly met here and you you've been spared the sprinklers right yes now do you have island and said look we have not possible buildings that have been in extent since one nine hundred fifty you grandfather all these buildings and it was just the convent again that these were if these people were nuns we wouldn't be here today furthermore we have fire watches we have we installed hundred thirty thousand dollars what's a fire watch i believe this is where we had then on each floor that were up at night and they centrally they were there to monitor whether or not there were fires most of them are just an alcohol drug rehab and that's they're there they're there to provide a safe place where they would otherwise be on the street and mandalit sisters in and in accordance with their of their beliefs said we have we have fewer and fewer nuns and we have all this we have a hundred twenty thousand square feet of space we have this convent building where we can't we don't have enough nuns to fill the rooms we have how residential high school building fordable could recovery please bring these men and the mayor was on board everything was going fine and i would like to point out that the city has not challenge to the district court's ruling that we had no requirement after september eleventh two thousand and thirteen to install it spring comes but nevertheless we still have a fourteen month period after that the blue island kept us from reopening the ministry we were let's while you were litigating the state law of preemption issue right which we would have had to litigate had the island not opposed to us in terms reopening is that what you're what the damages you're seeking about yeah i follow that or the building for fourteen months well for there certainly entire time that yeah essentially taking a ministry that was operational in another part of the damage component is not just that the damage to see to the ministry that had to shut everything down to call the man out but it lost all of its connections with the various referral sources that it had the linkage agreements between the various sources that they received the men from that they find out about these men calculate because it's a matter of the aggravation and inconvenience that we have but the end what we could show in terms of the funds we were receiving in two thousand and eleven from the various sources to what we received and when we were an opportunity to hear your answer first of all the fire chiefs letters from may in early june two thousand and twelve do you disagree with the fact stated there we disagreed with to its application of the two thousand and twelve sprinkler code and i believe in our brief we identified each fact that we disagreed with and i know he was arguing that we need to install the sprinkler system we had to move all the guys out and treating us as a new development this is not a new development or change as i understand it the fire chief was saying that you all had failed to comply with the five year plan that you worked out with the city yes and i think that that point needs clarification because we do disagree with that because what we ended up doing was we submitted a proposal mr dunn leaving the mantle sisters went to the building commission and said here's what we're trying to do here's our phase in program it's going to take us some time to accomplish each step and mr minutemen upon receiving the plan says well if you're going to move man and prioritize your fire alarms because that's most important and that's what we did so we had a a plan proposal but the city even acknowledged that that wasn't some type of binding contract it was just our it was our phasing plan if you're a woman how we and in plan i'm going about this let me let me try to make the question with a more pointed eleven we were not that the two thousand and twelve code which they had just passed that march didn't apply to us furthermore we are jews and you thought you could expand use indefinitely under the old code or run i guess as a legal not conforming  e we considered what we were doing to be effectively the same thing nuns could go in there is you expand from twenty residents to one hundred well we the argument is based on the space and the rooms available in other words not based seem to allow you to negotiate each line of the fire code and to the extent you find it inconvenient or expensive to comply with could you get in the district judge obviously was troubled by that prospect could you give me some comfort on yeah i know we were trying to it was our plan to install sprinklers and we were trying to negotiate line by line we were we were just operating in the clear you addressed could you address the broader legal implications of your argument which i understand to be that you could challenge under the illinois religious freedom restoration act any detail of the city fire code that you found inconvenient or expensive to comply with no i  you there's the prospect you could choose to comply with the law or you could choose to violate the law and in violation of the law then the city enforces it and says you got it we're going to evict you have to get out i thought when we were measuring substantial burdens it was a substantial burden of complying with the law not substantial burdens imposed by enforcement in the case of a violation no i believe in the whole  prohibited the individual from growing a beard the same would be in this case where they're preventing us from engaging our religious exercise no no no no they're saying if you want to do this you've got to you simply have to have sprinklers have to have sprinklers and we were arguing that we wanted to be in two thousand and twelve when we went before the city council zoning board appeals we weren't arguing to be exact we said you shut our ministry down please allow us to keep men in action taken against you sure and i think the both refresh and really focus on the impact of the regulation on our religious i see my time with with respect to compliance or violation i think it's  why because that's the way in which the statute as i read it is is the application of any law which restricts the religious acts are and let me give you a wild hypothetical that ok a minister wants to carry out his ministry and is short on funds he decides to carry out a couple robberies to get the funds to get the money needed for his ministry he's arrested convicted sentenced to let's say five years in prison he argues in sentencing this is imposing a substantial burden on my ability to exercise my religion really when you're in prison would be more than sufficient to serve the state's needs yes i don't think that that would be a legitimate claim and one of the root for wh to get to him for violating a law general applicability is more severe than needed to serve the state's purposes and it has the effect of limiting his ministry for four years where the otherwise would be available well if the court believes it's a substantial burden like that and i mean that's where peter that's where you're looking if that's where your logic leads there's a problem ok i hope if you can tell me where that logic falls apart i would welcome that yeah i'm just looking at the impact of what happened in this situation we had an existing ministry that was operational and no had no requirement to install sprinklers apps that comfort level two thousand and thirteen therefore if the if the district court's opinion is upheld what that would mean is that the municipality can take an apple landry's regulation that doesn't even apply to us keep us from doing what we're doing and shut us down and that's that's where i'm at in terms of the facts of this case again i i don't get much into the criminal law and i don't know its applicability and under you know as to referee in that situation but i might like my times clearly i think i've eat all my rebuttal time so who can i thank you for summary judgment on every single federal crime and the only claim he didn't grant in our favor was a state law preemption matter questions of law we know are reviewed in all walks but when we look at the entire record in this case and look at the precedent that this particular court as entered we believe that the district courts grant of summary judgment should be affirmed for six reasons first enforcement of the blue island fire code including the related to the action in may of two thousand and twelve did not substantially burden a formal recoveries religious religious exercise under the illinois religious freedom restoration act second the religious land use institutional persons act did not apply in this particular case to the blue island fire code as the fire does not it's not the land use regulation as defined by this court and several precedent third of the city's zoning code for obtaining a special use permit did not substantially burden a formal recoveries exercise of religion interest as it was based on the national fire safety code and i have to say that logic escapes me but will we'll talk about that day after you finish your list ok thank you don affordable recover your honor was not entitle to prevailing fees because they did not prevail on any of the constitutional claims any of the fee shifting plans in six affordable recovery was not entitled to an exemption under the fair housing act just because of a lack of financial resources this court has ruled in several precedents in the second circuit that financial resources is not an issue when it comes to an accommodation that's not a disability on the least restrictive means take this little bit out of water but i'll just tell you i don't understand why the national standard is deemed to be minimal particularly since we have the state of illinois for starters saying it's not necessary to have sprinklers in these buildings right for fire safety purposes well i think we have to take it in two phases first when a formal recovery was first allowed into the property they were allowed and as a small entity they only were approved for fourteen people and so when they went above that that and that brings in a whole different realm of law related to large facilities and i think it's very important because there's admission throughout the record from affordable recovery that there were seventy three men living in this space that no one knew no one gave approval for and they didn't have a license or at the time i get that  t since the state of illinois has presumably the same compelling governmental interests and is satisfied with other fire safety measures the do not include sprinklers here i find it difficult to accept the idea that nothing less than full enforcement of the blue suit blue island fire code would suffice i mean we're talking about strict scrutiny under trans to two tional standards here  and that's a tough standard to meet it is a tough standard to me and we don't we don't believe for you all were willing to let them go for a while without sprinklers right who either was working with affordable recovery when they were a small facility when they were only fourteen people when they became seventy three people in there without any permits approvals or a license from the state without any but out any license permits or approvals your honor it's the record is clear that they didn't get a license until september of two thousand and thirteen well over a year after the fire chief had discovered that so how does that connect with the sprinkler truly a dangerous situation they were living in a space that was never a residence before this process this owned by the mother of sorrows the sisters its five different buildings and where the nuns currently reside they were residing in two thousand and twelve where the seventy three men were residing they were they were living on mattresses on floors in old classrooms that in a building that used to be a school this building wasn't ruling in the first world outreach versus city of chicago case in two thousand and nine when he said that requiring a sprinkler system yard was not a substantial burden if anything it was a modest line of mine requiring a sprinkler building being a landmark but the building could still be sold rented and judged out point that to this building could still be used they just couldn't use it overnight they couldn't stay there overnight council has stated repeatedly here today that blue island prevented them from using their property there is absolutely nothing in the record that says they could not have used this building during the day to offer counseling to these men there's nothing that says they couldn't have had worship services on the property during the day and there when if they did if they did that where there have to be spankers well based on my understanding of the fire chief concerns it was the overnight accommodations were sprinklers would have been needed for safety purposes during the pendency of this i would the city of blue either want to work with them without sprinklers if they were still using their property during the day i think daytime hours was not the issue but they did their issue and spoke overnight accommodations fees off the off the men who stayed there overnight we also the owner that just  got it right when he found that the really religious land use and institutionalized persons act does not apply to the for the code as the fire code does not constitute a land use regulation  fire code does not if they don't use regulation we also believe that just out got it right when he found that the city's zoning codes requirement for up taining a special use permit does not substantially burden affordable coverage exercise of religion we've heard counsel to talk about that this was the nuns we wouldn't be here this was the nuns this case had nothing to do with their religion as this court cited in civil liberties for urban believers the club case for sin city of chicago in two thousand and three the religious land use and institutionalized persons act does not provide religious institutions with  they are not entitled to a free pass or any type of special treatment and that's what we believe affordable recovery is asking this court to give them special treatment as just out correctly noted in the record before recovery was treated like everyone else who's come before the city of wild and including a non religious women's shelter that had looked into the mother of sorrows property before horrible recovered they were treated exactly the same given the exact same advice religion had nothing to do with it and i think it's also very important to underscore the fact that the city of new island actually did approve affordable coverage special use permit when they went through the process i think it's important  done everything they were supposed to do the city was working with no one knew that the formal recovery was moving seventy three men into a location that had never been used as an overnight residence before only affordable recovery knew that you are going to also address before my time is up the issue with regard to prevail and parties we believe that just out got it right when he found that affordable recovery was not entitled to prevailing party fees because they did not prevail on one single constitutional claim they only prevailed on a state law preemption matter and that was only because the state of illinois issued a license in september and thirteen well over a year after this case had already started and in in in this building and had they don't why did why didn't why did you guys fight him for the next year when there was still an a question of whether we apply state law or local ordinance even even everyone was was at that end because there was a dispute between local ordinance and state law without a spring without having run ins that's correct but that's that was based purely on state law that didn't have a fee shipping for vision and it was a question of all the decoction pretty much that could have been brought in state if it wasn't for the federal claims that would have even been in this and has built so we believe the courts reliance on supreme court precedent from one nine hundred eighty in the main versus typical case the major purpose of forty issue and not any of the federal planes were granted and we believe they were not entitled to attorneys fees we would ask that just al be affirmed on that matter as well and finally your honor so we believe the judge dow got it right when he found that a formal recovery was not entitle to exemption from the blue island fire code under the fair housing act i think we've heard the argument again here this morning that before the recovery didn't have the money to put in the sprinklers because they didn't have seventy three men living in a place that wasn't a residence before and they needed the financial resources from that to put in the spring there's well this court has specifically set in hemisphere a building company versus the village of ariston park in one thousand nine hundred ninety that even this a palette does not have to adjust its zoning or safety regulations for purposes of the fair housing act where the request of the combination is based on financial resources and i think that's what we have here a party that was seeking because they didn't have the money we we wanted from a ship it had absolutely nothing to do with the bill or disability whatsoever  and i think what's really important underscored your honour's before i take my seat is that this all could have been prevented had affordable recovery done what it was supposed to do and comply with the laws instead of building their business just as they did when they applied for the license with the state of illinois and got their license and september twenty eighth thirteen had they done that earlier this would have been an issue this was an organization looking for special treatment and as this court has said on numerous instances just because you're a religious institution does not entitle you to a free pass we do not believe affordable recovery was i would with the time i do have i would like to address one and one key thing the city has painted us as something i don't organize ation that didn't try to comply with what we were required to do we went to the mantel it sisters we had the meeting with the mayor the building commissioner mayor said move fourteen guys and go ahead the manolis sisters their prop he was being vandalized they needed people there to provide security for the recovery moved them moved in everybody everything was friendly they put together the plan with the mandalit sisters here's our faison program they were meeting with regularly with the building commissioner what do you want me to do how do you want me to do it the building commissioner says prioritize the fire the fire alarms that's the most important thing this is an existing building go ahead move forty guys and once they approve the fire alarm system the fire chief came back in the building commissioner came back inspected the property gave them the blessing to move forty men in this this characterization is if we were trying to work with affordable the problem sometime around the mr welch expressed concern about the seventy three right your honor and i don't think we have we do that the affidavit that mr dunn levy is that they had permission from the building commissioner to move forty men in but what were came didn't say oh by the way take those twenty extra men that you've moved thirty three thirty three thank you josh three go yes sorry please please take the man that there were not authorized to move them out what they  said is move everybody remove everybody from the bill all the people that were in recovery there or they were already there and that's what we're it's the manner in which they imposed it that really has focused on it's not just that we have a sprinkler regulation says you must focus on the manner in which it's imposed and we were saying look for a year you've let us on we spent one hundred thirty thousand dollars meeting with the building commissioners direction as to what you want to do we have a  full convent building a full high school building they produce no evidence other than if you were one of the seventy three excuse me where the seventy three i believe in building c and d is where they were going to build in two different buildings in d is the residential high school building and c is the convent building and so so there are some rooms that were already exist and there is a slap there yeah they had i believe they were able to get matters to sleep on mattresses i believe they were able to get mattresses and who got the matches mr dunne levy i don't require that the source of the mattresses but the mattresses were brought in and the day again a lot of these people would otherwise be in the street and so giving them a safe place on  and really that's what we're arguing is that our religious exercise where we were already in operation we were already in operation with with the blessing of blue island the problem is during the informal informal period while everybody was operating on a friendly basis that changed for some reason and in the mess that we are now in just essentially blue island trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube and to say oh well rather than requiring you in two thousand and eleven to try to comply with every jot and tittle of their code  we're going to force you to do it now and you've got to start from scratch and we're going to kick all your men out and regardless of how fragile they are or whether they're in the recovery or how this is going to devastate your ministry the judge criticized  think unfortunately the attorneys didn't i don't know if the getting the attorneys involved earlier would have been better but i think in some respects no heating attorneys involved better would have been helpful because of the lynchpin of that victory or victory was the granting of state license the plan of certainly could and probably should have sought long before to commence this litigation right now i think we had we had to get work and get things squared away with municipality before we could get things right away with the state