(A residential block in Chicago’s Arlington-Deming Historic District.)
January 8, 2025
by Kendra Parzen, Landmarks Illinois Advocacy Manager
In September 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected a fourth appeal in Hanna and Mrowka v. City of Chicago, likely ending nearly 20 years of litigation over the constitutionality of the Chicago Landmarks Ordinance. While the appellant could seek an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is unlikely that the court would hear that appeal. The court found in favor of the appellee, the City of Chicago, concluding that its Landmarks Ordinance is constitutional and was fairly applied in the cases of two historic district designations from the 2000s.
In 2006, the City of Chicago adopted the East Village Historic District in West Town. The Arlington-Deming Historic District, a four-block historic district in Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood, followed in 2007. Both districts are largely residential and reflect Chicago’s growth during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Albert C. Hanna and Carol Mrowka, who owned properties in these districts, sued the city, arguing that the Landmarks Ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, leaving landmark designation subject to misapplication. They also argued that the ordinance improperly delegated the authority of Chicago’s City Council to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks and that it violated their substantive due process and equal protection rights by designating some areas of the city as historic districts while not designating other areas with similar characteristics. Ultimately, the court rejected all of these claims.
The series of decisions has far-reaching implications because many municipalities across Illinois and the United States use similar language in their own historic preservation ordinances. In 2013, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Landmarks Illinois and a variety of other organizations and municipalities submitted an amicus curiae brief arguing that terms used in the Chicago Landmarks Ordinance that the appellants identified as too vague have specific and widely accepted meanings when used in a historic preservation context. Landmarks Illinois organized a nationwide effort to recruit signatories for this brief.
The outcome in the City of Chicago’s favor is an important vindication of not only Chicago’s historic preservation ordinance but also of the constitutionality of local historic preservation ordinances around the state. While it does not set legal precedent outside Illinois, it sends a strong message to opponents of landmark designation nationwide that like-minded challenges are unlikely to succeed.
Landmarks Illinois celebrates the strong defense mounted by the City of Chicago. We thank attorneys Julie Bauer, Ryan Dunigan, Richard Friedman, Mark Henning, Michael Rachlis, Graham Grady, Martin V. Sinclair, Jr., and John Tully, who provided us with pro bono counsel. We also thank current and past members of the Law Division of the National Trust for Historic Preservation for contributing their expertise, including Paul Edmondson, Tom Mayes, Betsy Merritt and Will Cook.
Preservation News Blog Homepage