Inthe
UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
No.14‐3678DISCOUNTINN,INC.,
v.
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
CITYOFCHICAGO,
Defendant‐Appellee.
Appeal fromthe United StatesDistrictCourt for theNorthernDistrictofIllinois,EasternDivision.
No. 13C7168 —CharlesR.Norgle, Judge.
ARGUEDSEPTEMBER16,2015—DECIDEDSEPTEMBER28,2015
BeforePOSNER,EASTERBROOK,andWILLIAMS,CircuitJudges.
POSNER,CircuitJudge.In2013and2014,Chicago’sDe‐partmentofAdministrativeHearingsdeterminedthattheplaintiffinthiscase,DiscountInn,Inc.,hadviolatedtwoCityordinances—theweedordinanceandthefencingordi‐nance.Theweedordinanceprovidesthat“anypersonwhoownsorcontrolspropertywithinthecitymustcutorother‐wisecontrolallweedsonsuchpropertysothattheaverage
heightofsuchweedsdoesnotexceedteninches.Anypersonwhoviolatesthissubsectionshallbesubjecttoafineofnotlessthan$600normorethan$1,200.Eachdaythatsuchvio‐lationcontinuesshallbeconsideredaseparateoffensetowhichaseparatefineshallapply.”MunicipalCodeofChi‐cago§7‐28‐120(a).(Noticethat“weed”isnotdefined;thisomissionwillbecomeimportantlaterinouropinion.)
Thefencingordinanceprovidesthat“itshallbethedutyoftheownerofanyopenlotlocatedwithintheCityofChi‐cagotocausethelottobesurroundedwithanoncombus‐tiblescreenfence….Provided,however,thatthissectionshallnotapplyto…sideyards.Theownershallmaintainany suchfenceinasafeconditionwithouttears,breaks, rust,splintersordangerousprotuberancesandinamannerthatdoesnotendangerorthreatentoendangervehiculartrafficbyobstructingtheviewofdrivers.Anyfencewhichisnotmaintainedinaccordancewiththeseprovisionsisherebydeclaredtobeapublicnuisanceandshallberemoved….Itshallbethedutyoftheownerofanylotwhosefencehasbeensoremovedtoreplacesuchfencewithanoncombus‐tiblescreenfencemeetingtherequirementsofthissectionandofthisCode.”MunicipalCodeofChicago§7‐28‐750(a).Violators“shallbefinednotlessthan$300normorethan
$600foreachoffense,”and“eachdaysuchviolationcontin‐ues shallconstitute aseparate and distinctoffense to whichaseparatefineshallapply.”§7‐28‐750(d).
Theplaintiffseekstoinvalidatebothordinancesasviola‐tionsoftheConstitution;italsoseeksrecoveryofthefinesthatithaspaidforviolatingthem—itclaimstohavebeenfinedmorethantwentytimes,andtohavepaidallthefineswithoutseekingjudicialreview.Thedistrictjudgedismissed
thecomplaintforfailuretostateaclaim,precipitatingthisappeal.
Anoddityofthiscaseisthatnowhereinthebriefs,orinthedistrictcourt’sopinion,orelsewhereintherecordisthereanyinformationaboutDiscountInnexceptthatitisincorporatedinIllinoisanditsaddressisinSkokie—acityseparatefromChicago.Virtuallyallthatwe’vebeenabletolearnaboutthecompanyisthatitownsrealestateinChica‐go.DiscountInndoesnothaveawebsite,oraDunBrad‐streetreport,ormorethanatinyhandfulofInternetrefer‐ences,noneofwhichdescribesitsbusiness.TheaddressinSkokieisaprivatehomeinasuburbansubdivision.ThehomeisownedbyapersonnamedBabaAbdulJubbar,whoalsohasnowebsite,andthepropertyapparentlyistheheadquartersnotonlyofDiscountInnbutalsooftheSoloLandCorp.andSNSGeneralCorp.,whichalsodonothavewebsites.Anditseemsthata“SuzieBaba”ispresidentofatleastfourothercorporationsatthataddress.SeeEntitySource,“SnsGeneralCorp.,”EastSt.LouisMonitorofSeptember20,2012,“NightclubsandConvenienceMartsCharged,”
Althoughthefactualvacuumdoesnotpreventourdecid‐ingthecase,wetakethisopportunitytoadvisecounselforfuturelitigantstoprovidejudgeswithsomeminimalback‐
groundinformationabouttheirclients—somesenseofcon‐text—tohelpthejudgesmakesenseoftheircase.
DiscountInn’scomplaintmakestwoprincipal claims.Thefirstisthatthechallengedordinancesviolatetheprohi‐bitionintheEighthAmendmentof“excessivefines.”TheSupremeCourthasnotdecidedwhetherthisclauseoftheamendmentisapplicabletostateactionbyvirtueofthedueprocessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment—thevehiclebywhichanumberofprovisionsoftheBillofRightshavebeenheldtoapplytothestatesandtheirlocalgovernments.McDonaldv. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 765 n. 13 (2010). WeassumedinTowersv.CityofChicago,173F.3d619(7thCir.1999),thatitdoesapply,buttheonlybasisofourassump‐tionwasthatthepartieshad“notdisputedthattheEighthAmendment’sExcessiveFinesClauseappliestothecivilpenaltiesatissueinthiscase.”Id.at623–24.(Asinthiscase,thepenaltiesinTowershadbeenimposedbytheCityofChi‐cago ratherthan bythefederal government.) Wecanindulgethesameassumptioninthiscasebecausethefinesimposedbythechallengedordinancesarenotexcessiveevenifthe“excessivefines”clauseisapplicable.AttheoralargumentDiscountInn’slawyerstatedthatanyfineabove$200wouldbeunconstitutional,buthemadenoefforttoexplainhow
$200wouldbesufficienttoachievetheobjectivesof theweedandfencingordinances.Dependingontheprobabilitythataviolationofsuchanordinancewouldbedetected,theexpected(asdistinctfromthenominal)expenseofaviola‐tionmightbetooslighttohaveadeterrenteffect.(Iftheprobabilityofbeingfined$200isonly10percent,theex‐pectedcostisonly$20.)
We’llconsidershortlywhethertheweedordinanceful‐fillsalegitimategovernmentalinterest(ifitdoesnot,afineforviolatingitwouldindeedbeexcessive);plainlythefenc‐ingordinancedoes,sotherehastobeanontrivialpenaltyforviolatingitinordertoinduceevenminimalcompliance.Afinetoppedoffat$600canhardlybedeemedanexcessivepenaltyforviolatingtheordinance.Thefencingofvacantlotsisimportanttoenabletheidentificationofsuchlandasbeingownedratherthanabandoned,andrelatedlytodis‐couragesquattersandalsotodiscouragetheuseofvacantlotsassitesforthesaleandpurchaseofillegaldrugs,asinMorrowv.May,735F.3d639,640–41(7thCir.2013),andtoprotectpeoplefrominjuringthemselvesinvacantlotspittedwithholesorfromencounteringpoisonivy,feralcats,wilddogs,orevencoyotes,whichhavebecomecommoninChi‐cago.SeeDawnRhodes,“CoyotesFindingNewHomeinDowntown Chicago,”ChicagoTribune, January 16, 2015,
Theweedordinancepresentsmoredifficultquestions,thoughnotbecausethemaximumfineistwiceasgreatasforviolationsofthefencingordinance.(Wehaven’tbeentold,andhavenoidea,whythedifference.)Thereisthedifficultyofcalculatingtheaverageheight(whichrememberisnottoexceedteninches)oftheweedsinwhatmaybealargelot.WeassumethattheCityemployeeswhoenforcetheordi‐nancedonotattemptprecisemeasurement,butinsteadmakearoughestimateoftheaverageheightoftheweeds;there seems no practicable alternative—imagine trying to
measuretheheightofeachweedinalotandthenaveragingtheheightsofallthe weeds.
Thesecondquestiontheordinancepresentsisthesocialpurposeofaweedordinance;forifthereisnone,orverylit‐tle,themaximumfine,althoughnotlargeasfinesgo,maybeexcessive.Towersv.CityofChicago,supra,173F.3dat624–26.TheCityexplains,however,that“highweedscanconcealillegalactivities,obscuredangerousdebris,harborrodents,serveasabreedinggroundformosquitoesandWestNileVirusandcontributetoallergiesandbreathingdifficulties.That’swhyStreetsSanitation’sBureauofStreetOpera‐tionsisaggressiveaboutkeepingovergrownweedsfrombecomingaprobleminourneighborhoods.”CityofChica‐go, City Service, “Weed Cutting/Weed Removal,”
Butthereisanambiguityintheconceptofa“weed,”anambiguitybroughtoutbycomparing“weed”to”nativeplant.”Anativeplant,likeaweed(orperhapsitcouldbethoughtofasanelitetypeofweed),is“born”andmaturesnormallywithouthumaninterventionalthoughitmayalsohavebeendeliberatelyplanted.Itneednotbedestructive.Incontrast,an“invasiveplantspecies”enterseithernaturallyorbyhumantransportintoanareainwhichnativeorothervaluedplantsaregrowing,andsqueezesoutorotherwiseinjuresordestroysthoseplants.Cf.40C.F.R.§166.3,defin‐ing“invasivespecies”forpurposesoffederalpesticideregu‐lationsas“anyspeciesthatisnotnativeto[aparticular]eco‐
system,andwhoseintroductiondoesorislikelytocauseeconomicorenvironmentalharmorharmtohumanhealth.”
Unmanagedinvasiveplantspeciesarelargelysynony‐mouswith“weeds.”Weedsinterferewithotherplantsandotherhorticulturalandenvironmentalgoalsby”competingwiththedesiredplantsfortheresourcesthataplanttypical‐lyneeds,namely,directsunlight,soilnutrients,water,and(toalesserextent)spaceforgrowth;providinghostsandvectorsfor plantpathogens,givingthem greater opportunitytoinfectanddegradethequalityofthedesiredplants;providingfoodor shelterfor animal pestssuchasseed‐eatingbirdsandTephritidfruitfliesthatotherwisecouldhardlysurviveseasonalshortages;offeringirritationtotheskinordigestivetractsofpeopleoranimals,eitherphysicalirritationviathorns,prickles,orburs,orchemicalirritationvianaturalpoisonsorirritantsintheweed…;causingrootdamagetoengineeringworkssuchasdrains,roadsurfaces,andfoundations,blockingstreamsandrivulets.”Wikipedia,“Weed,” suchas $1200, aimed at limiting the City’sweedpopulation,isnot“excessive”inthesensethatthewordbearsintheEighthAmendment.
DiscountInnalsocontendsthattheweedordinanceisvagueandforbidsexpressiveactivityprotectedbytheFirstAmendment.Theconcernisthatnativeplants,whilesharingwithweeds the property of not havingtobe planted, are, un‐likeweeds,beautifulandnondestructivewhenproperlymanaged.Here’sanexample,pickedatrandom;itisapic‐
tureoftheplant,nativetothewestcoast,called“salmonber‐ry”:
AndhereareaphotoofacommunitygardeninwhichthegardenerscultivateIllinoisnativeplants,intheWickerParkneighborhoodofChicago;aphotoofaprivategardenintheHydeParkneighborhood,exhibitingnativeAsters;andaphotoofavacantlotsubmergedbyweedsthatnearlycoverthecars inthe background.
Alegitimateconcernofpropertyownerswhogrowna‐tiveplantsisthatenforcersoftheweedordinancewillmis‐takenativeplantsfor“weeds,”anundefinedtermintheor‐dinance,aswesaid.However,aprovisionoftheCity’s“RulesandRegulationsforWeedControl,”designed“toac‐complishthepurposesofSection7‐28‐120oftheMunicipalCodeofChicago”(theweedordinance),defines“weed”as“vegetationthatis notmanagedormaintainedbythe personwho ownsorcontrolsthe property on whichall such vegeta‐tionislocatedandwhich,onaverage,exceedsteninchesinheight.”Interpretedliterallythiswouldembraceallvegeta‐tionon theproperty. (And whatabout trees? They’revegeta‐tion.Alotfulloften‐inchtalltreeswouldbeasight.)Abet‐terdefinitionof“weed”wouldbe“awildplantgrowingwhereitisn’twanted.”Thatwoulddispensewiththeirrele‐
vantissueoforigin.Thedandelionis“native”totheMid‐westbyanymeasure;soiscrabgrass;butdandelionsandcrabgrassonalawnareweeds.
ItispossiblethattheCityrecognizesthedistinctionbe‐tweenweedsandothernativeplants;forthepreambletotheregulationjustcitedthatdefines“weed”statesthat“whilepromotingtheuseofnativevegetation,theCityofChicagowantsto continue torequirepropertyownersandpersons incontrolofpropertytomanageandmaintainvegetationgrowingontheirproperty.”Thiscouldmeanthattheaver‐ageheightofanyvegetationmustindeednotexceedteninches;oritcouldmakeanexceptionfornativeplantsthatareboughtandplanted,ashasbecomecommon;oritcouldexceptallnativeplants.Thelattertwointerpretationswouldbeconsistentwiththeordinance—exceptthattheCity’sen‐forcersmaynotbeabletodistinguishbetweenweedsandnativeplantswithoutinstructionthat,sofarasweknow,theyarenotgiven.Furthermore,asinthedandelionexam‐ple,someweedsare“native”totheMidwest,whereas“na‐tiveplants”asthetermisusuallyusedhasapositiveconno‐tation.
Noticealsothatwhileitissensibletorequiretheproper‐tyownerto“manage”vegetationgrowingonhisproperty,it’snotclear whyhe shouldberequiredto “maintain” it.Thevegetationmayconsistentirelyofweeds,whichtheCitydoesnotwantpropertyownersto“maintain.”TheCitysaysinitsbriefthat“manageandmaintain”include“protect[ing]thoseplantsfromharmfrompestsandtheelements”––and“thoseplants”appeartoincludeweeds.Addingtothecon‐fusion,theregulationwecitedfromtheCity’s“RulesandRegulationsforWeedControl”statesthat“theCityofChi‐
cagopromotestheuseofnativevegetationasameanstoconservewaterandtoreducecarbondioxideemissions”—yetinthenextsentencerepeatstherequirementthatproper‐tyowners are “tomanage andmaintainthe vegetationgrow‐ingontheirproperty,”astatementthatseemstolumpna‐tiveplants inwithweeds.
Evenifweassume(asisplausible)thattheweedordi‐nancedoesnotembracenative‐plantgardens,thiscandonothingforDiscountInn,becauseitdoesnotarguethatitspropertiescontaingardensofnativeorotherdecorativeplants.Insteaditarguesthattheten‐inchceilingonweedsviolatesthefree‐speechclauseoftheFirstAmendment.
Thoughplantsdonotspeak,thisneednotexcludeallgardensfromtheprotectionoftheclause,fortheclausehasbeenexpandedbyjudicialinterpretationtoembraceothersilentexpression,suchaspaintings.See,e.g.,Hurleyv.Irish‐AmericanGay,LesbianBisexualGroupofBoston,515U.S.557,569(1995)(“anarrow,succinctlyarticulablemessageisnotaconditionofconstitutionalprotection,whichifcon‐finedtoexpressionsconveyingaparticularizedmessage,wouldneverreachtheunquestionablyshieldedpaintingofJacksonPollock,musicofArnoldSchöenberg,orJabber‐wockyverseofLewisCarroll”(citationomitted)).Thegar‐densofSissinghurstCastleandofGivernymightwellberecognizedasworksofartweretheyintheUnitedStates.TheremaybegardensinChicago,whetherconsistingofna‐tiveorother plants,that areorshouldberecognized asworksofart.SeeChrisCoffey,“GardenersChallengeChica‐goWeedControlRules—GardenersComplainofVagueWeedControlOrdinance,”NBC5Investigates,
Weed‐Control‐Rules‐269489511.html.TheCity’sbriefacknowledgesthat“somegardensandlandscapingprojectsmightarguablyconstituteexpressiveconduct,”thoughtheconcessionisgrudging,ifit’saconcessionatall—“mightar‐guably”suggestsitisn’t.
Buttheplaintiff’sclaimthatthefree‐speechclauseinsu‐latesallweedsfrompubliccontrolisridiculous.It’snotasiftheplaintiffinvented,planted,nurtured,dyed,clipped,orhasotherwisebeautifieditsweeds,orthatitexhibitsorin‐tendsoraspirestoexhibittheminmuseumsorflowershows.Itsweedshavenoexpressivedimension.Theplain‐tiffjustdoesn’twanttobebotheredwithhavingtohavethemclipped.
Wemustbecarefulnottoimposeaminimalstandardof“expressiveness”fordeterminingwhenanobjectisartandthereforeprotectedbytheFirstAmendmentfromgovern‐mentprohibitionordestruction.In1917MarcelDuchampexhibitedaurinalthathecalled“Fountain”—itisafamousworkofart,thoughDuchamphadnotdesigned,built,al‐tered,ordecoratedtheurinal.ButDiscountInndoesnotclaimtohaveaddedanythingtotheweedsthatgrowonitslots—notevenaname.Allowingweedstogrowtallcannot,inandofitself,beregardedascreatingworksofart.
Takentoitslogicalextreme,theplaintiff’sdefenseoftheweedwouldprecludeanyeffortsbylocalgovernmentstopreventunsightlyordangeroususes ofprivateproperty.Homeownerswouldbefreetostrewgarbageontheirfrontlawn,grazesheepthere,andbroadcastBeethoven’sFifthSymphony24hoursadaythroughoutdoorloudspeakers—allinthenameoftheFirstAmendment.
Wedoworrythatcompliancewiththeweedordinancemaybedifficult.WearenotreassuredbytheCity’sstate‐mentthatapropertyowner“canusearulertodeterminewhetheraplantismoreorlessthanteninchestallandcanlikewiseusesimplearithmetictodeterminetheaverageheightoftheplantsonhisproperty.”Whatifthereareathousandplants,andthereforeathousandmeasurementstobemadeandtheresultsthenaveraged?Butdifficultyofcomplianceisnotapersuasivegroundfordeemingtheordi‐nanceunconstitutional.
Itremainsonlytomentiontheplaintiff’sfurtherargu‐mentthattheordinancesareunconstitutionalbecausetheyfailtospecifyastatuteoflimitations.Thereisnorule,intheConstitutionorforthatmattercommonlaw,thateveryclaimmusthaveacut‐offdate;first‐degreemurderstatutes,forexample,donotprescribelimitationsperiods.Itwouldbeverydifficulttodesignastatuteoflimitationsforen‐forcementoftheweedorfencingordinance.Whenwouldthelimitationsperiodbegintorun?Whenthevegetationonapropertyfirstreachedteninches?(Butwhenwouldthatbediscovered?)Whenafenceenclosingavacantlotcollapsed,orthelotwassold?TheCitycanhardlymonitoreverylawnandyardinChicagosothatitwilllearntheexactdayonwhichsomeone’saveragevegetationreachestheforbiddenlevel,orhisfencecollapses.It’samusingtothinkofhun‐dredsofcivilservantsfanningoutacrossChicago,eachclutchingarulerplusacalculator(todeterminetheaverageofallthemeasurementsthattheinvestigatortakesofthevegetationonagivenlot)andbeingcarefulnotonlytorec‐ordthedatebutalsotolearnifpossiblethedateonwhichtheaveragevegetationhadexceededthepermittedheight,and,ifthereisnofencearoundavacantlot,howlongthat
situationhaspersisted.SuchadeploymentoftheCity’sem‐ployeeswouldbeapreposteroususeofpublicresources,however,andtheplaintiffsdon’tclaimthatupondiscover‐ingaviolationtheCitytriestodeterminewhenitbegan,inordertobeabletomultiplythefinebyasmanydaysastheviolationhascontinued.
AFFIRMED