## Facts

- Chicago enacted an ordinance restricting city pet retailers to selling only dogs, cats, or rabbits obtained from government animal-control facilities, humane societies, or rescue organizations.
- The City adopted the ordinance in response to concerns that some retailers sourced animals from large commercial breeders associated with poor animal-welfare conditions and resulting health and behavioral problems.
- The City asserted the ordinance would reduce consumer harm and municipal costs related to animal control, sheltering, and euthanasia.
- Two Chicago pet stores and an out-of-state dog breeder challenged the ordinance.
- Plaintiffs alleged (1) the ordinance exceeded Chicago’s Illinois constitutional home-rule authority due to state-law limits or preemption, and (2) the ordinance violated the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against or unduly burdening interstate commerce.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Chicago’s ordinance exceeded the City’s home-rule authority under the Illinois Constitution due to state-law preemption or specific statutory limitation.
2. Whether the ordinance discriminated against interstate commerce (facially, in purpose, or in practical effect) in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
3. If the ordinance was evenhanded, whether it nonetheless imposed an impermissible burden on interstate commerce under deferential review.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held Chicago acted within its Illinois home-rule authority because state law did not expressly preempt the field or specifically limit the City’s power to regulate pet sourcing and animal welfare.
- The court held the ordinance did not discriminate against interstate commerce, including in practical effect, because it applied uniformly to Chicago retailers and did not favor in-state commercial breeders over out-of-state breeders.
- Applying deferential review applicable to evenhanded regulations with incidental interstate effects, the court concluded the ordinance had a rational relationship to legitimate local interests and was constitutionally permissible.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois home-rule units may regulate matters of local concern concurrently with the state unless the General Assembly expressly preempts local action or specifically limits home-rule authority.
- A Dormant Commerce Clause challenge turns first on whether a law is discriminatory (facially, purposefully, or in practical effect) versus evenhanded with only incidental effects on interstate commerce.
- Evenhanded local regulations that incidentally affect interstate commerce are reviewed deferentially; they are upheld when reasonably related to legitimate local interests and not subject to heightened anti-discrimination scrutiny absent discriminatory features.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Chicago’s restrictions on pet-store sourcing as a valid exercise of Illinois home-rule power and an evenhanded regulation that did not discriminate against interstate commerce; the court concluded the ordinance was rationally related to local animal-welfare and cost-control objectives and affirmed dismissal at the pleading stage.


Park Pet Shop, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 872 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2017)