Don’t Mess With Chicago!!
There are many ways in which people think about our Toddlin’ Town. “Second City” (although it has been third in size for over 40 years). “City of Big Shoulders” for those with literary pretensions. “The Windy City”, which, at least in origin, had nothing to do with weather and everything to do with politics. The home of Jaszczuk P.C. for the savviest followers of the legal community. But many aspects of Chicago’s law and culture might surprise those whose roots are elsewhere, and even some lifelong residents of our fair city.
A recent ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals confirms that this is a tough place. The facts are pretty simple: two vehicle owners had their cars impounded by the city for unpaid parking tickets. They were under the impression that if they paid their tickets, their cars would be returned to them. Instead, one learned that the city sold his car for scrap and the other that the vehicle had been turned over to the lienholder who financed the purchase. Both were, perhaps understandably, perturbed that failing to pay parking tickets in amounts presumably far below the value of their cars could cause them to forfeit the vehicles without compensation. They filed a class action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated Chicagoans, challenging the constitutionality of the city’s taking without compensation, among other theories.
The Court of Appeals, affirming dismissal of their suit, firmly and without compunction put the plaintiffs squarely in their place.
“The purpose of the forfeiture scheme is to target individuals who—by refusing to pay—have hitherto evaded punishment for their traffic and parking infractions. Instead of continuing to issue unanswered tickets, the City institutes a different form of punishment: hindering offenders’ ability to drive by immobilizing, impounding, and potentially even disposing of their vehicles. Without this graduated forfeiture scheme, vehicle owners who repeatedly violate the traffic code could evade punishment. The threat of impoundment and disposal forces them to internalize the consequences of their behavior and, accordingly, deters those violations in the first place.”
Navigating the rules here can be a challenge for the uninitiated—witness such esoteric issues as claiming “dibs” on your meticulously shoveled parking space—but it pays to know what does and does not pass in the City by the Lake. If you need assistance “internalizing the consequences of your own behavior”, try consulting your alderperson. If you need help with a legal issue, Jaszczuk P.C. is the logical place to start.
The case is O’Donnell et al v. City of Chicago, et al., No. 24-2946, (7th Cir. Dec. 22. 2025)