Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel
^GOOD.
“The plaintiffs are nothing more than ‘concerned bystanders,’ and concerned bystanders are not entitled to press their claims in federal court,” the ruling said.
|
Owned. I didn't think anything different would happen here to be honest. Any other blockers to start construction, technically? There's been a little uptick of late of new construction permits in Woodlawn. Probably unrelated but still good to see.
Also from the article
Quote:
The panel also agreed with the district court’s dismissal of the argument that the transfer of public park property violated the Fifth and 14th amendments. It ruled the plaintiffs failed to prove they have a private property interest in Jackson Park that would render its sale to the Obama Foundation as unconstitutional.
Finally, the panel affirmed the lower courts’ denial of the plaintiffs’ challenge to appeal its lawsuit based on the National Park Service and Federal Highway Administration review that Jackson Park alterations would have an “adverse effect” on its listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Again, the federal appeals and district courts both lack jurisdiction to resolve a public trust claim, according to the ruling.
Herbert Caplan, founder of Protect Our Parks, said in a phone interview that the group plans to file a motion for rehearing. Should that falter, Caplan said he remains hopeful of a long-shot chance at consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.
|