August 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of whether removal is appropriate when "the state administrative review scheme provides for deferen- tial review of a state agency's deci- sion," the Seventh Circuit noted that the First and Fourth Circuits have interpreted the Supreme Court's ruling to mean that "dis- trict courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain such actions." Accordingly, upon considering the question of whether a state action is removable, the Seventh Circuit concluded that "the focus must be upon the character of the state proceeding and upon the na- ture of the review conducted by the state court." The court explained: If the state administrative review process provides for a trial de novo, removal of the action to federal court does not require the district court to perform an appellate function that is inconsistent with the character of the court of original jurisdiction. Under those circumstances, the state pro- ceeding can be termed a "civil ac- tion." If, however, the state adminis- trative review process requires the state court to proceed on the basis of a more deferential review of the state agency's findings and determinations, removal of the action to federal court would require the district court to perform an appellate role with re- spect to the decision of the state administrative agency. Emphasis added. Turning to the state actions at issue in this case, the Seventh Cir- cuit proceeded to analyze what the scope of judicial review would be had it been exercised by the Cook County Circuit Court, i.e., whether the actions could be characterized as a "civil action" or actions confer- ring appellate review. First, the court noted that the Illinois Ad- ministrative Review Act (IARA) "provides the exclusive method by which an aggrieved party may ob- tain judicial review of decisions made by certain administrative agencies in Illinois." The court then observed that the "judicial function performed by an Illinois court when it is exercising statutory ... juris- diction" is expressly limited by the IARA. While Illinois courts have interpreted this provision to allow consideration of constitutional claims in conjunction with IARA claims, the Seventh Circuit stated that the court is "bound by the record made at the administrative hearing" and "when the record is insufficient to permit a ruling on the constitutional claim, the court may remand the matter to the a- gency for further evidence." The Seventh Circuit thus con- cluded that "the scope of judicial review accorded by the IARA" in- volves a "deferential" rather than "de novo" standard of review and that "although the state trial court's review extends to 'all ques- tions of law and fact presented by the entire record,' it may not hear new evidence and must accept the agency's findings and conclusions on questions of fact as 'prima facie true and correct.'" Judicial review under the IARA is an "appellate proceeding" and "as such, it is not a 'civil action of which the district courts ... have original jurisdiction' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)." By way of comparison, the Seventh Circuit determined that removal would be permissible if a separate § 1983 claim were brought before a state court since review under such claims is not confined to the ad- ministrative record. 4) 0 0 .0 Finally, the Seventh Circuit determined that the fact that the lawsuit involved both federal and state law claims did not alter its ruling. Since, under the court's analysis, the College's state law claim could not be characterized as a "'claim' in an 'original action'," the case "removed to the district court cannot be termed a 'civil action' ... of which the district courts ... have'original jurisdiction' within the meaning of section 1441 (a)." Accordingly, the court ruled that removal of the College's law- suits to federal court "is barred" and its "claims must be remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County for determination." Analysis The U.S. Su- preme Court's• re- view of the Seventh Circuit's recent deci- sion in International College of Surgeons should be closely watched. Although the issue before the Court does not directly involve a historic preserva- tion issue, affirmation of the circuit court's decision could be harmful to historic preservation, to the ex- tent that it limits a jurisdiction's ability to remove a case to federal court when defending a lawsuit that includes a number of constitu- tional claims, an important right in cases where the state courts do not follow established federal jurispru- dence. If the Seventh Circuit's rul- ing is affirmed, property owners could preclude federal court review simply by raising their federal claims in the context of an admin- istrative review. [Richard J. Brennan, Esq. of Win- ston & Strawn, Chicago, Ill., David B. Love, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fair- weather & Geraldson, Chicago, Ill., and Daniel L. Houlihan, Esq., Hou- lihan & Associates, Chicago, Ill., represented the International Col- lege of Surgeons, United States Sec- tion of the International College of Surgeons, and Robin Construction Corp. collectively. Susan S. Sher, Corporation Counsel of Chicago, Illinois, along with Lawrence Rosenthal, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Benna Ruth Solomon, Chief As- sistance Corporation Counsel, and Anne Berleman Kearney, Assistant Corpora- tion Counsel, repre- sented the City of Chicago, Commis-_ cion on Chicago Landmarks, the Plan Commission, and individually named defen- dants.] Affirmation of the decision could be harmful to historic preservation, to the extent that it limits a municipality's ability to remove a case to federal court when defend- ing a lawsuit that includes a number of constitutional claims.