In this order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois temporarily enjoined enforcement of Chicago suburb Glen Ellyn‘s prohibition on renting property for less than 30 days.
Blakelick owns a five-bedroom single family home that when purchased was not located in Glen Ellyn. Since 2022, it has been offering the home for short-term rental on platforms like Airbnb. But in 2024, the property was annexed by the Village of Glen Ellyn. Blakelick continued to rent the property for less than 30 days.
The dispute apparently began six months earlier when a neighbor began complaining about noise, culminating in the threat to “do everything in [his] capability to see to it that such use of property is banned in this area.” Slip op. at 2. Apparently he was successful, because in 2025, the Village, now having jurisdiction over the property, adopted an ordinance prohibiting owners from renting property “for any period less than 30 days.” Slip op. 3.
Blakelick’s federal lawsuit claiming a Penn Central taking, and motion for TRO followed:
Plaintiff contends that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and amounts to a regulatory taking because the Ordinance interferes with Plaintiff’s ability to profitably operate and maintain the Property. Plaintiff claims the Ordinance would require Plaintiff to sell the Property and suffer economic loss. During oral argument, Plaintiff argued that it could not operate the Property as a long-term rental because doing so would be unprofitable and Plaintiff could not sell the house for profit due to the large outstanding mortgage.
…
In its motion and at oral argument, Plaintiff avers that it would be economically infeasible to profitably operate and maintain the Property for rental periods extending beyond 30 days. If the Ordinance were to go into effect, Plaintiff claims that it would have to immediately sell the Property and would suffer an economic loss based on the outstanding encumbrance. Additionally, at the time Plaintiff’s members purchased the Property, it was in unincorporated DuPage County and not subject to Defendant’s laws or ordinances. Even when the Property was annexed to Glen Ellyn, Plaintiff alleges that the use of the Property for short-term rentals was a legal, non-conforming use that Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation would be “grandfathered in” pursuant to applicable Glen Ellyn ordinances.
Slip op. at 4, 5-6.
To the court, the key is that at the time Blakelick purchased the property, it had “the assumption it could use the Property indefinitely for short-term rentals.” Slip op. at 6. The court held that Blakelick is likely to prevail “because the Ordinance would prevent Plaintiff from economically utilizing the Property in a feasible manner and interferes with Plaintiff’s investment-backed expectations.” Id.
On one hand, this seems pretty straightforward. The before-and-after uses of the property and the fact that when the owner purchased the property there were no restrictions on length of tenancies (and indeed wasn’t even subject to the Village’s jurisdiction) cut in the owner’s favor.
But you old hands know that these kinds of cases are not straightforward. Whether a challenge like this flounders on the shoals of “property” (compare this case with this one with this one), or the court simply says no, there’s no taking, trying to pick up a common thread can be very frustrating.
We’ll keep following along, to see if this one adds any clarity. Stay tuned.