Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

International College of Surgeons v. City of Chicago

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureAbstentionSupplemental JurisdictionRemovalBurfordPullmansupplemental jurisdiction§ 1367(c)

Facts

ICS sought to demolish two buildings on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, but the City denied its demolition permit requests under the City’s Landmarks Ordinance. ICS filed two state-court suits alleging violations of the state and federal constitutions and also sought on-the-record review of the Landmarks Commission’s determinations; the City removed the actions to federal court, where they were consolidated with a federal declaratory judgment action filed by ICS. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, holding the ordinance constitutional and the Commission’s findings supported by the evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. On remand from the Supreme Court, the remaining questions were abstention, discretionary supplemental jurisdiction, and ICS’s remaining state takings claim.

Issue

Whether the district court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction under Burford or Pullman, and whether it should have declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Also, whether the City’s Landmarks Ordinance violated the Takings Clause of the Illinois Constitution on its face or as applied to ICS.

Rule

Abstention is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the federal courts’ duty to exercise jurisdiction. Burford abstention applies only when a case presents difficult unsettled state-law questions of substantial public import or when federal review would disrupt state efforts to establish coherent policy, and the latter requires not only an available state forum but a special forum standing in a special relationship of technical oversight or concentrated review. Pullman abstention applies only when there is substantial uncertainty in state law and a reasonable probability that state-court clarification would obviate the need for a federal constitutional ruling. A party waives a claim that the district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) by failing to raise that discretionary argument in the district court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Mara Velez sued in federal court in Milwaukee after her federal due process claim and related Wisconsin constitutional property claim were removed from state court by the city. The remaining state claim turns on a long-settled Wisconsin rule that compensation for property 'damage' requires a direct physical disturbance, and no physical intrusion occurred.

Should the federal district court abstain under Burford on the ground that the dispute concerns an important local historic-preservation program?

Explanation. Burford abstention is an extraordinary and narrow exception. Under the majority opinion, the first Burford rationale applies only to difficult, unsettled state-law questions of substantial public import. A locally important land-use regime is not enough by itself. Where the state-law standard is settled and the federal court need not guess at uncertain state law, Burford abstention is inappropriate.