Haymarket DuPage, LLC v. Village of Itasca:Date Argued: January 29th, 2026; Docket Number: 25-2010

Case Summary:Haymarket DuPage, LLC v. Village of Itasca arises from Haymarket DuPage, a nonprofit substance-abuse treatment provider, seeking zoning approval to convert a former hotel in Itasca, Illinois into a treatment center for individuals with substance-use disorders and related disabilities, and the Village’s subsequent denial of that request, leading to federal civil-rights litigation and now an appeal in the Seventh Circuit.At the lower court level in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:22‑cv‑00160), Haymarket DuPage sued the Village of Itasca, the Itasca Plan Commission, Mayor Jeffrey Pruyn (official capacity), Itasca Fire Protection District No. 1, Itasca Public School District 10, and Superintendent Craig Benes (official capacity), alleging that the Village’s refusal to grant the zoning approvals necessary to operate a treatment center at a former Holiday Inn site constituted discrimination against people with disabilities and a failure to reasonably accommodate them, in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and related anti‑discrimination statutes.Haymarket alleged that the Village misclassified its proposed facility for zoning purposes, subjected the application to unusually onerous and protracted procedures (including numerous hearings), and relied on pretextual concerns about economic impact and community character, all while community opposition and official rhetoric reflected discriminatory attitudes toward prospective residents with substance‑use and mental‑health disabilities.In February 2024, the district court (Judge Steven C. Seeger) issued an opinion resolving certain motions to dismiss, including dismissing some defendants—such as the Itasca Fire Protection District and Itasca Public School District—on standing grounds, and later addressed additional issues as the case proceeded, while the United States Department of Justice, after conducting its own investigation, moved to intervene to assert federal disability‑discrimination claims against the Village based on the same zoning denial.The district court denied the United States’ motion to intervene (including permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)), concluding that intervention was not warranted, and that denial of intervention would not prevent the government from enforcing disability‑rights laws through other avenues; the United States then filed a notice of appeal, and the matter is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as Case No. 25‑2010, where oral argument was held on January 29, 2026