## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 3709 W I L L I A M A. B RANDT, J R ., Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. V IL LAGE OF W I NNE T KA, I LLINO IS, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C588

—Rob ert M. Dow, Jr., Ju dge

.
A RG UE D M AY 21, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 20, 2010

Befo re E AST E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R O OK, Chi e

f Judg e . In 199 6 W i l l i am A

. Brandt, J r. , hel d a fund ra i si ng ev ent for P re si dent Clinton a t hi s ho use in W i nnetka, I l l i nois. The S ecr et Se rv i ce as k ed W i nne tk a to pr o vi de as si st an ce t o e nha nc e th e Pres i dent’s se curi ty. The expense o fco m ply i ng with that re quest l ed the Vil l age to enact i n 2000 an o rdi nance re quir i ng peopl e whose e vents o ccasion the need f or2 N o. 09

- 3709

su chs er vi ce s to b ea r their c o st s. Cha pte r 5
. 66 o fthe W i nnetka Code i m poses on the eve nts’ sponso rs the cos t o f al l“s peci alse rv i ces, ” s uch as extr a pol i ce, cl osing st re ets , a n d r e r o u t i n gt r a ffi c . T h e o r d i n a n c e h a s e x c e pti o ns

— o ffi ci alpr es i den ti alv i si ts , s o m e g athe r i ng s o pent o the publ i c wi th o utc ha r g e, and even ts s po ns o r ed bythe Vil l age

—but pri vate i nvi tat i on- onl y r eceptions s uch as m ostpol i ti calfund ra i ser s a re subj ect to thi s fee. Si nce 20 00 m any pol i ti caloffic ial s a nd candi dates f or office hav e been to Bran d t’s hom e. Sen ator H il lary C lin to n w as th er e i n 2 00 5 a n d w as to co m e a ga inin 20 08 , tho ug h the l at te r e ve ntwas c an ce l l ed afte r the D em oc ra tic P ar ty ch os e a d iffer en t p re sid en tia l ca n d idat e. Br an dt ho st ed fundr ai singe ve nt s f o r Li sa M adi g an, the Attorney Gener alo fI l l i noi s, and Se natorA lFr anken ofM i nnesot a. M any otherpol i ti calo ffi ci al s a nd candi dates for offic e h av e e nj oy ed B ra n d t’s h os p ita lity , an d h is m oney - ra i si ng pro w ess , since th e Vil l age enact ed i ts or d in an c e. H e has notbee n ask ed to pay one cent f or sp ec ial ser vi ces. The Vi l l age has sent onl y three bi l l s o n acco unt ofpol i ti calev ents, al lt o resi dents o therthan B r a n d t : o n e f o r a v i s i tb y P r e s i d e n tB u s h i n 2 0 0 4 , a n d t wo f o r v i si ts b y F i r stLa dy Laur a Bus h. The b i l lf o r Pr es i den t Bus h’ s ev en t was s o m e $75, 000, a fte r r eque st s bythe Se cre t S er vi ce l ed the Vil l age to put m osto f i ts pol i ce f or ce in the fi el d (a t ov er ti m e r ate s) and askf oras si stance fro m nei ghbor i ng m unici pal i ti es. The Repub l i can N ati onalCom m i tte e pi cked up the tab. T h e visit s by L au ra B ush l ed to bi l l s o f$6 , 500 and $2, 500; a pol i ti cal co m m ittee pai d o ne o fthe se a nd pe r ha ps bo th( th e record i s un clear).N o. 09

- 3709 3 A l though he has nev erbee n bi l l ed for any s peci al se r vi ce s, Br an dt fi l ed th i s su i t unde r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 19 83 a nd ask ed the dist rict court to i ssue a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent that the o rdi nance vi ol ates the fi rs t a m endm ent b y “c hi l l i ng ” hi s wi l l i ng ne ss to i nv i te po l i ti ca l o ffi ci al s and candidate s t o t he Vi l l age . Brandt co ntends thathe use s his hom e not on ly to raise m one y b u t a ls o to i nform guest s that he supp or ts the candidates ’ p ol i ti calposi ti ons. H e has noti denti fi ed any perso n w hom he woul d have in vit ed b u t fo r th e ris k t h at h e w ou ld be h it w ith a b ill that the c andidate ’ s co m m i tte e wouldn ’t p ay ( re cal lthat he i nvi ted H i l l ar y Cl i nton whil e s he w as r u n ni ng f or Pr es i den t, whenthe S ec r etS er vi ce was l i k ely t o a skthe Vil l age to p ro vi de speci alse rv i ces) , but he i nsi sts that ther e i s bo und to be som eo n e in thatcat ego ryev entual l y. H e al so c ont en ds th atthe o r di na nc e di sc r i m i na te s o n the ba si s o fv i ewpo i nt, b ec au se the mor e co nt r o ve r si althe c a n d i d a t e ’ s p o l i t i c a ls p e e c h th e h i g h e r the co st s o fc r o wd cont r o la r e l i k e l y t o b e . T ha tc r e a t e s a f o r m o fh e c k l er s’ vet o, Brandt m ai ntai ns. S ee Fo rsyth C o un ty v. N a tio na list M o v e m e nt, 505 U
. S. 12 3 ( 1992 )

. The di str i ct c ourtdoubted that Brandt suffer s a ny i nj ury, however , a nd di sm i sse d t h e s u it for w an t o f st an d in g. 20 09 U .S. D ist . L EXIS91 263 (N

. D
. I ll

. Sept

. 30, 2009 ). The dis tr i ct c ou rt ’ s o pini on has thr ee them es: that B ra n d t w i ll no t b e inj u re d ; th at h ow th e o rd in an c e w ill w ork forBran d t and the ca nd ida t e s h e favors i s un certain, m aking the di spute unri pe; and that i t is unw i se to exer c ise dis cre ti on t o i ssue a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent that m ayo cc as i o n pr ematur e co ns ti tu ti o na la dj udi ca ti o n. The fi rs t of these them es concerns the exi ste nce o fa case4 N o. 09

- 3709

o r c o nt r o v e r s y u nd e r Ar t i c l e I I I ; the s e c o nd and th i r d d o not, and conce rn the appropr i ate exer ci se ofdi sc reti on ra therthan the l i m i ts ofj ud icia l power. S ee Na tio na l P a rk Hos pi t al i ty Ass ’ n v. D epar t m e nt of Interior, 53 8 U.S

. 80 3 (2 0 03); Wi l t on v. Se ve n F al l s Co. , 515 U
. S. 277 ( 1995 )

. A lthough m or e o fthe dist ri ct jud ge ’ s o pini on i s devo ted to d iscu s s in g w he n an d how discret ion shou ld be ex erci sed tha n t o di sc us singthe e xi st en ce o fs ta ndi ng, the j ud gm ent s tat es that the s uiti s di sm iss ed f orl ack of j ur i s di c t i o n. T ha twa s a mi s s t e p. St an ding exi sts wh en the pl ai nti ffsuffer s a n actualo r i m pend i ng i nj ury, no m att erhow sm al l ; wh en that i nj ur y i s ca us ed b y the de fen dan t’ s ac ts ; a nd whe n a j ud i ci aldeci si on in the pla i ntiff’s f avo r w oul d redre ss th at inju ry . See , e.g., S u mm e rs v . Ea r t h Is l an d In s t i t ute, 129 S. Ct

. 1142 (2009); St e e l Co. v. Cit ize ns f or a B etter E nv i r onm e nt, 52 3 U
. S. 83 , 10 2–04 ( 1998 )

. Brandt i s a pol i ti cal prom ote r; hi s hom e i n W i nnetka has host ed gu est s whos e pr o te ct i o n l ed to “spe ci als er vi ce s” wi th i n the sco pe ofthe or dinance. H ad i t be en i n f or ce when Pres i dent Clinton was there i n 199 6, Brandt would have re c eiv ed a d em an d for p ay m en t. Se n at or C lin to n w ou ld have com e in 200 8 had she been nom i nated f orPre si dent. A l though a co urt cannot be suret h at B ra n d t w ill aga in have a guest w hose pro tect i on deta i lwil las k the Vi l l age for “s p ec ial se rv ice s,” th e p ro b ab ility is m at er ially gr eat erthan zer o. Inj u ry n ee d n otbe ce rt ain . A n y p r e -en for c em en t s u it en ta ils s o m e e lem en t o f ch an c e: p er h ap s t h e p lain tiff w ill desi st bef or e the l aw is a p p lied, per haps the l aw wil lbeN o. 09

- 3709 5

r epe al ed, orper ha ps the l aw w o n’ t be e nf o r ce d a s wri tt en . B u t p re -en for c em en t c h alle n ge s n on et h ele ss are w ith in A rt i cl e I I I
. S ee A bbo tt La bo rato ries v. G a rdn er, 387 U.S

. 13 6 (1967); P i e r c e v . Soc iety o f Sisters , 268 U

. S. 510 (1925); 52 0 Sou t h M i ch igan Ave nueAs s oc i at e s , Lt d. v. D e vi ne, 4 3 3 F
. 3d 961 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)

. See al so Alliant E nergy C orp. v. Bie, 27 7 F.3d 916 ( 7th Cir. 2002 ); D a niel A

. Farber, U nc ertain ty a s a Basis f or S t andi ng, 3 3 H o f st r a L. Re v. 1 12 3 ( 20 05 )

. And bec au se th e ordin an ce im p os e s th e fee on the ev en t’s sponsor, the f act that a ca nd i da te ’s p ol i ti calco m m i tte e m ay pay does notel i m i nate t h e inj ury. The co m m i tte e has no l ega lobl i gat i on; and, i fit does pay, thi s r educes the ne t pr oce eds o f t h e fund ra i serand thus di m i ni shes th e c an d id at e’s w illing n es s t o v isitW in n et ka an d cu rt ails the num bero fo ccasi ons on wh i ch Brandt can voi ce hi s pol i ti calo pini ons to vi si tor s in hi s ho m e. Caus ati on and r edres sabi l i ty al so ar e est abl i shed, so Brand t has sta nd i ng to sue. Bu t the di str i ct j ud ge did notabuse hi s di scr eti on wh en concl ud i ng tha t a dj ud i cati on would be p re m atur e. ( A buse o fdi sc r et i o n i s th e st an dar d o fa ppel l at e r eview w he n a d ist ric t c ou rtd ec id e s t h at a d isp u te ’s re so lu tio n sh ou ld be pos tponed and on that gr ound d ecl i nes t o i ssue a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent. S ee Envi s io n H e al t hc are, Inc . v. Pr e f e r r e dOneIn s u r an c eCo ., 6 04 F.3d 98 3 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ).) Cou r ts s ho ul d no t i ss ue de cl ar at o r y j udg m en ts unt i lthe dispute i s r i pe, se e M e dIm m une, Inc . v. Ge ne nt e ch, Inc ., 549 U
. S. 118, 127 ( 2007 ), an d m us t avo id u nn eces sary co ns ti tu ti o na la dj udi ca ti o n. Brandt descr ibes hi s chal l enge as one to the o rdi nance a s appli ed

— for as w rit te n th e o rd in an c e d oe s n otd isc rim i-6 N o. 09

- 3709

na te o n a cc o unto fa ny s pea k er’s v i ewpo i nt
. The r e i s no r ea so n why a muni ci pal i tyc an ’ t bi l lho us eh o l der s an d othe rs wh ose act i vi ties m ake extr a dem ands on m unicip al s er vic es . B ra n d t h as ev er y rig h t t o s u p p or t a n y c an d idat e he pl ea se s an d e xpr es s hi s o wn po l i ti ca lv i ews , b ut no r i g htt o ha ve hi s ne i g hb o r s unde r wri te the e xpen se . The o r di na nc e i s not l i m i te d t o po l i ti ca ls pee ch ; i t al so a ppl i es t o movi e- m ak er s who wantt o us e th e V illag e a s a se t, sp on so rs of sp or tin g e ve n ts , an d ad d iti onalper sons w hose act i vi ti es re quir e the polic e to cl ose s t r e e t s o r p r o v i de oth e r “ s pe c i a ls e r v i c e s . ” S o Br a nd t w as prudent to concede that thi s o rdi n an ce c annot be d ec lar ed inv alid “o n its fac e” (w h ich i s t o sa y, inall p ossible app li cation s). Yet i t i s har d to see how a c ou rt can eval uate an as appli ed chal l enge sensibl y unti la l aw is appli ed , o r ap p lica t ion is so on to oc c u r an d th e w ay in w h ich it w orks can b e d eterm ined

. Cf. Le ar Corp. v. Johnson E le ctr ic Holdings, Ltd

. , 353 F.3d 580 , 583 (7th C ir. 2003) (court shoul d not i ssue a decl ar ato ryj u d gm ent r eso l vi ng a dispute about i nd em ni ty und eran insurance contr act unti li t has bee n est abl i shed how m uch the i n su re d m ust p ay , and f or w ha t acts). Pred ictions, su ch as Bra nd t’s pr o po si ti o n tha t bi l l s are bou nd t o b e hi g he r whenthe candidate ’ s v i ew s a re m or e co nt en tio us, need t o be prove d. W e ca n n ot take j ud i ci alnot i ce that the S ecr et Se rv i ce r equi re s m or e l oca ll aw - en forcem ent a ssi sta nce as a Pr esi dent’s popula ri ty fa ll s o r a ca nd i date for Pres i dent strugg l es i n the pol l s. Ind eed, thi s r eco rd does not conta i n any evi dence t h at pu bl i c o pp osi ti on t o a P r e s i d e n t ’ s ( o r p r e s i d e n t i a lc a n d i d at e’ s ) p o l i t i c a lv i e wsN o. 09

- 3709 7 ha s th e sl i ght es t effec t o n the c o sto fthe wor ktha t th e Se cre t S er vi ce a sks a m unici pal i ty to perf or m . N or does the r eco rd sho w that any candidate has decl i ned Br a nd t ’ s i nv i t a t i o n b e c a us e Wi nn e t k a ’ s o r di na nce red uces the ne t pr o ce eds o fpo l i ti ca lfundr ai se r s. The Re publ i ca n N at i o na l Comm i tt ee pai d th e bi l lf o r Pr es i den t Bu sh’ s fund ra i seri n 200 4 but has n ot j oi ned thi s s uit, norhas any o therpol i ti calo rg ani zati on int er vened as a pla i nti ff

. The di str i ct c ourtdi d not abu se i ts disc re ti on i n thi nk i ngtha t th i s ch al l en g e i s to o abs tr ac t to warra nt c on st itu tio n al a dj u d ica tio n . ( C o m m o dity Trend Servi ce, In c . v . C F TC, 1 4 9 F
. 3 d 6 7 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) , o n whi c h Br a nd t re lies, deal t with a pr e- enf or cem ent c hal l enge to a busin es s re gu lat ion, w h er e, as in A bbo tt La bo rato ries , enf or cem ent was hi ghl y p robabl e a nd the effects m uch easi er to an tic ip at e t h an th os e o f W in n et ka ’s o rd in an c e.) Th e j ud g men to fthe di s t r i c tc o ur ti s mo di fi e d t o p r o v i de th at th e su it is d ism issed in an ex ercise of t h e c ou rt’s disc re ti on notto i ssue a d ecl ar ato ryj ud gm ent, and as mod i fi e d the j ud g men ti s a ffi r med

.

7- 20- 10