1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

AFFORDABLE RECOVERY HOUSING ) Judge 

An Illinois not-for-profit corporation, )

 ) Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Case No.

 )

THE CITY OF BLUE ISLAND, a municipal )

corporation, and TERRY VRSHEK in his )

official capacity as Blue Island Fire Chief ) TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

 )

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff Affordable Recovery Housing (“ARH”) seeks a temporary restraining 

order and preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo against the City of Blue Island, to 

prevent (1) 73 men in ARH’s recovery program from being thrown out onto the streets of Blue 

Island without resources and (2) the destruction of ARH’s religious, charitable operation. 

Toward this end ARH seeks a TRO and preliminary injunction restraining 

Defendants the City of Blue Island, and Terry Vrshek in his official capacity as Blue Island Fire 

Chief, from removing, causing the removal, or threatening to remove ARH or any of its residents 

from the premises at 13811 S. Western Avenue in Blue Island; from assessing fines for 

continuing to use the property and for operating the recovery program at its property; and from 

initiating prosecutions against ARH for the use of the property.

1. ARH reincorporates the allegations of its complaint and attaches the John 

Dunleavy Declaration as Exhibit 1. As specifically noted therein:

Case: 1:12-cv-04241 Document #: 4 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:76
2

a. The City and Fire Chief have ordered ARH to throw the 73 residents of its 

recovery program out onto the streets of Blue Island by 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 

1, 2012. Complaint ¶¶ 3, 8. The Fire Chief later said 14 persons could remain on 

the property until June 30, 2012, including John Dunleavy and his family.

Dunleavy Decl. ¶ 38.

b. Also they have ordered ARH to cease operations by 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 1, 

2012. Complaint ¶¶ 3, 8. For both of the foregoing reasons ARH’s religious 

mission is in jeopardy of being destroyed. Dunleavy Decl. ¶ 39.

c. Affordable Recovery Housing (“ARH”) is a faith-based organization which 

provides in its vision statement, among other things: “Our Vision is to help 

individuals reach their full potential by the power and Grace of God and their 

active role in recovery with guidance, discipline and direction.” The recovery plan 

they provide is the Christian-based, 12-step program. The program is staffed by 

14 persons, all or most of whom are Christians. The premise of the program is 

that a strong belief in, and reliance upon, God is necessary to recovery. They are 

located in the Catholic Convent run by the Sisters and Mother of Sorrows. 

Dunleavy Declaration ¶ 36.

d. As authorized by the Fire Chief’s letter of May 24, 2012 ARH has appealed the 

order to the Blue Island City Council, but the City Council has not contacted 

ARH regarding a hearing or any other next step. Complaint ¶¶ 4, 9.

2. A Temporary Restraining Order should be issued immediately because ARH’s 

First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free association, the Fifth Amendment 

right to procedural due process, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which 

Case: 1:12-cv-04241 Document #: 4 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:77
3

enforces the Free Exercise right) are being violated, and ARH is thus being harmed irreparably. 

“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably 

constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-74 (1976). 

3. In Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2006) the Court 

set forth the elements necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction, which are the same as a 

temporary restraining order:

To win a preliminary injunction, a party must show that it is reasonably likely 

to succeed on the merits, it is suffering irreparable harm that outweighs any harm 

the nonmoving party will suffer if the injunction is granted, there is no adequate 

remedy at law, and an injunction would not harm the public interest. (Citation.) If 

the moving party meets this threshold burden, the district court weighs the factors 

against one another in a sliding scale analysis, (citation), which is to say the 

district court must exercise its discretion to determine whether the balance of 

harms weighs in favor of the moving party or whether the nonmoving party or 

public interest will be harmed sufficiently that the injunction should be denied.

4. But not all elements are at issue when First Amendment rights are infringed. As 

explained by the Seventh Circuit in Joelner v. Village of Washington Park, Illinois, 378 F.3d 

613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004):

When a party seeks a preliminary injunction on the basis of a potential First 

Amendment violation, the likelihood of success on the merits will often be the 

determinative factor. (Citations.) “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for 

even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," 

(citation), and money damages are therefore inadequate, (citation). 

Concomitantly, there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is 

prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute because “it is always in the 

public interest to protect First Amendment liberties.” (Citations.) ("We believe 

that the public interest is better served by . . . protecting [] core First Amendment 

rights"), (citation) (“Surely, upholding constitutional rights serves the public 

interest.”).

5. In sum, because “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms is presumed to 

constitute irreparable injury for which money damages are not adequate, and injunctions 

protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest” only two elements can 

Case: 1:12-cv-04241 Document #: 4 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:78
4

be at issue here. Christian Legal Society at 859. The first is “the likelihood of success on the 

merits”, Christian Legal Society at 859-67, and the second is balancing of harms, Christian 

Legal Society at 867.

6. The likelihood of success favors ARH. In determining “the likelihood of success 

on the merits” ARH need demonstrate only a “better than negligible” probability of prevailing. 

Badger v. Boulevard Bancorp, Inc., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6071 at *11 (N.D. Ill. 1991) 

(“[a]lthough the [movant] must demonstrate some probability of success on the merits, ‘the 

threshold is low. It is enough that ‘the plaintiff’s chances are better than negligible...’ 

Furthermore, even this low threshold of ‘better than negligible’ decreases ‘the more heavily the 

balance of harms weighs in [the movant's] favor’”); see, also Mullis v. Arco Petroleum Corp., 

502 F.2d 290, 293 (7th Cir. 1974) (“[t]he greater the urgency and the greater the extent of the 

impending injury, the more appropriate it may be to retain the status quo temporarily while the 

court appraises the strength of the legal claim....”)

7. As to likelihood of success the record contains the following:

a. In the preceding nine months ARH passed five or six fire inspections under Fire 

Chief Copp, the predecessor to Chief Vrshek. When John Dunleavy went to City 

Hall to inspect his file he found that all five or six fire inspection reports had been 

removed from the file, with only the five-year plan agreement between ARH and 

the city left in the file. Dunleavy Decl. ¶ 35.

b. As part of the five year plan previously agreed to by the City ARH has installed a 

“state of the art” fire alarm system. Dunleavy Decl. ¶ 37. Given the presence of 

this alarm system, the May 29, 2012 report of Yung Architects, LLC makes it 

clear that installation of a sprinkler system “may be deferred for an indefinite

Case: 1:12-cv-04241 Document #: 4 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:79
5

period of time”. Complaint ¶ 15, and Exhibit 3, Exhibits A and B; and Dunleavy 

Decl. ¶ 40.

c. Although the Fire Chief asserts the sprinkler system is necessary, the 2003

International Building Code (which the City formally has adopted) provides that 

“[a]pproved automatic sprinkler systems are required only in “new buildings and 

structures.” Exhibit 2, attached hereto.

d. Additionally, the City Council may delay, modify or overturn the Fire Chief’s 

order.

8. ARH also prevails on the balancing of harms:

a. Throwing 73 men, many without family or resources, out on the streets of Blue 

Island truly is dangerous, draconian and utterly heartless.

b. Destroying ARH’s religious and charitable mission likewise would be 

devastating.

c. As noted above in ¶¶ 7 a and b, ARH already has installed a “state of the art” 

alarm system which makes sprinklers unnecessary; and installation of sprinklers 

appears not to be required under the Blue Island Building Code, particularly for a 

building which has operated without them as a convent and boarding house for 70 

years.

d. The Fire Chief’s letter is utterly lacking an explanation for the urgency in 

imposing the June 1st deadline.

e. Similarly, the Fire Chief’s letter makes no citation to the Building Code, or any 

other code, in support of the need for sprinklers. For these reasons the draconian 

Case: 1:12-cv-04241 Document #: 4 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:80
6

vacation or order appears to be arbitrary, especially in light of the six fire 

inspections approved by Fire Chief Copp. 

9. Moreover, because First Amendment freedoms are at issue, the City must 

demonstrate “regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests” which are “significantly 

less restrictive” than throwing 73 men on the streets of Blue Island and completely destroying 

ARH’s mission and use of its property. Christian Legal Society at 861-62; see also IRFRA § 15: 

(The government must prove its actions further “a compelling governmental interest[] and is the 

least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”)

10. The Seventh Circuit has condemned the arbitrary and irrational use of power by 

city officials against religious organizations, and concluded that such constitutes a substantial 

burden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. World Outreach 

Conference Center v. City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531, 537-38 (7th Cir. 2009); Saints Constantine and 

Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc., 396 F.3d 895, 900-01 (7th Cir. 2005). The same conclusion 

should be reached as to the constitutional claims, and under IRFRA which has similar wording. 

See, also Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534, 537-38 (1993)

regarding the abuse of power by city officials when directed at religiously motivated conduct.

WHEREFORE, Affordable Recovery Housing requests that the Court:

A. Grant a temporary restraining order preserving the status quo by restraining 

Defendants City of Blue Island and Terry Vrshek from removing, causing the removal, or 

threatening to remove ARH or any of its residents from the premises at 13811 S. Western 

Avenue in Blue Island; from assessing fines for continuing to use the property and for 

operating the recovery program at its property; and from initiating prosecutions against 

ARH for the use of the property.

Case: 1:12-cv-04241 Document #: 4 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:81
7

B. Set a date for a preliminary injunction hearing; and

C. Grant other just relief.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

AFFORDABLE RECOVERY HOUSING

/s Andy R. Norman

Andy R. Norman

John W. Mauck

Andy R. Norman

MAUCK & BAKER 

1 N. LaSalle #600

Chicago IL 60602

(312) 726-1243

F:\Shared\Affordable Recovery Foundation\MOTTRO&PI20120531.docx

Case: 1:12-cv-04241 Document #: 4 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:82