Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Chicago’s Landmark Protection Ordinance

By: Richard Friedman and Langdon Neal

On September 25, 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to review a significant Appellate Court decision upholding the City of Chicago’s (the “City”) landmark designation ordinance against constitutional challenges, rendering the case final and marking a pivotal moment in historic preservation law. The underlying Appellate Court decision was released on March 24, 2025, representing the fourth time the challenges were brought to the Appellate Court.  Robinson v. City of Chicago, 2025 IL App (1st) 232174. This recent decision provides timely guidance for municipalities nationwide grappling with similar constitutional challenges to their preservation programs.

Background and Procedural History

The Chicago Landmarks Ordinance (the “Landmarks Ordinance”) was enacted in 1968 and establishes the legal framework for identifying and protecting historic buildings and districts throughout Chicago. The Commission on Chicago Landmarks (the “Commission”) is the governing body promulgated by the Landmarks Ordinance that recommends the buildings, sites, objects and districts for legal protection as official Chicago landmarks. In order to designate an official landmark site, the City council must determine, following a preliminary determination by the Commission, that a proposed district meets at least two or more of seven criteria enumerated in the Landmarks Ordinance.

Robinson v. City of Chicago was initially filed in September 2006 by Albert C. Hanna, who challenged Chicago’s Landmarks Ordinance as unconstitutionally vague and an improper delegation of legislative authority, while also claiming violations of his equal protection and substantive due process rights regarding his property in the Arlington-Deming Historic District (the “District”).

The case underwent multiple appeals and nearly two decades of litigation. In “Hanna I”, the trial court dismissed all of Hanna’s claims; however, the Appellate Court reversed, finding Hanna’s amended complaint legally sufficient (Hanna v. City of Chicago, 388 Ill. App. 3d 909 (2009)). On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment for the City on the vagueness and delegation challenges, but was reversed again. This pattern was repeated through “Hanna III” (2017 IL App (1st) 160493-U), with the trial court granting summary judgment and the Appellate Court reversing.

Following Hanna III, the parties underwent discovery and again the City moved for summary judgment on the substantive due process and equal protection claims, arguing the rational basis test governed both Hanna’s claims, and that standard was satisfied because conceivable reasons existed to support the landmark designation. The trial court agreed, finding the City’s historic preservation interest legitimate and the ordinance reasonably related to that interest. However, the Appellate Court reversed once more, holding that the complaint’s facts were sufficient to proceed beyond the pleading stage.

Decision

In “Hanna IV”, the final iteration of the dispute, the trial court accepted the City’s arguments and rejected all of Hanna’s constitutional claims. Donald A. Robinson, as executor of the estate of Albert C. Hanna, had challenged the District’s designation, arguing the District was no more historic than other non-designated areas and was unconstitutionally singled out in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Appellate Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, holding that historic designation is a legislative decision and “litigants may not challenge the factual underpinnings of…legislative judgments under due process analysis.” Applying the rational basis test, the Court found the District had a “legitimate interest in the preservation and protection of architecturally significant buildings, structures, and areas” and that the chosen method was reasonable because it needed only to find “any conceivable set of facts to justify the ordinance.”

In addition, the Court affirmed that rational basis review does not permit fact-based evidentiary challenges to legislative judgments and held that the District did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court also upheld the City’s authority to designate landmarks “one step at a time,” allowing incremental preservation efforts rather than requiring simultaneous designation of all areas, which supported both the rational basis analysis and the summary judgment for the City.

On September 25, 2025, the case was rendered final when the Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal, refusing to review the Appellate Court’s decision and ending nearly two decades of litigation. The dispute began prior to completion of the District’s designation process and, over the course of the litigation, the City’s Law Department maintained a steadfast defense of the preservation program across four mayoral administrations.

Conclusion

This landmark ruling represents a decisive judicial affirmation of the constitutionality of Chicago’s Landmarks Ordinance. The decision carries significant precedential weight for historic preservation law throughout the United States, as Chicago’s ordinance exemplifies the preservation frameworks adopted by municipalities nationwide following the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

The Court’s holding addresses two critical constitutional questions that have long confronted preservation programs. First, by rejecting vagueness challenges to the Landmarks Ordinance, the Court confirmed that the ordinance’s designation criteria provide constitutionally sufficient guidance for administrative decision-making. Second, by applying rational basis review and upholding the City’s incremental approach to landmark designation, the Court reaffirmed principles established in the seminal case Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978): namely, that historic preservation constitutes a legitimate governmental purpose and that municipalities possess broad discretion in advancing preservation objectives.

Further, by holding that rational basis review precludes fact-based evidentiary challenges to legislative designation decisions and that municipalities may proceed with landmark designations incrementally without violating equal protection principles, the Appellate Court strengthened the constitutional foundation for preservation ordinances modeled on similar criteria and procedures. As municipalities across the country legal support regarding the validity of their landmark designation programs and reinforce the judiciary’s deference to legislative judgments in matters of historic preservation policy.

The timing of this decision is particularly significant as cities nationwide confront increasing pressure to balance property rights with preservation objectives. The Court’s recent affirmation of Chicago’s incremental approach and its rejection of fact-based challenges to legislative designations offers immediate practical guidance for municipalities currently defending or implementing similar preservation programs.