Northwestern attorneys filed a brief in federal court Tuesday opposing Evanston’s December motion to dismiss the university’s historic district lawsuit – the next move in a litigation process that the city’s lawyer said could unleash an onslaught of briefs and counter-briefs over the next few years.

NU filed suit against the city Nov. 20 in an effort to prevent Evanston from enforcing the ordinance that established the Northeast Evanston Historic District in May 2000. Under the ordinance, owners of buildings in a historic district must file an application with the city’s Preservation Commission before making major structural changes such as replacing a roof or siding.

Evanston City Council approved the district in May after twice moving its northern boundary south from the Evanston/Wilmette border to appease several north Evanston residents. The district’s current boundaries are the alley between Lincoln and Colfax streets to the north, Emerson Street to the south, Sheridan Road to the east, and Sherman and Ridge avenues to the west.

Evanston’s legal counsel filed a motion Dec. 20 asking a U.S. District Court judge to dismiss NU’s lawsuit against the city.

The lawsuit contends that the city’s designation of the historic district violates NU’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection by treating the university differently than other local property owners who were not included in the district.

The lawsuit also states that the district was “motivated by vindictiveness” and attempted to punish the university for refusing to pay property taxes, which NU does not have to pay per its 1851 charter.

NU Asst. General Counsel Ann K. Adams said Tuesday’s brief was procedural and that the city is expected to file a reply. After the reply, a judge will hear both sides of the motion to dismiss at a hearing Feb. 23.

City attorney Jack Siegel said in the motion to dismiss that NU’s suit is illegitimate. Siegel said the case should be dismissed because NU fails to prove that Evanston’s adoption of the district denies the university equal protection.

Furthermore, he said in the motion, NU’s lawsuit is “a conventional land use dispute” that belongs in state court.

While the city’s December motion criticizes the university for not seeking redress in Illinois state courts, NU’s counsel argues any state court remedies to the dispute are inadequate because they would delay the process by two years and cause irreparable harm to possible renovation efforts.

Attorneys for NU also are arguing that the city never conducted public hearings to consider the input of property owners who objected to being included in the historic district’s twice-revised boundaries.

“The city violated the university’s right to procedural due process because the commission never conducted public hearings to consider the redrawn local historic district after the city arbitrarily carved out over 500 buildings and structures at the 11th hour,” NU’s brief says.

Siegel said if a judge grants the city’s motion to dismiss, all litigation will end. But if the motion is not granted, he said he expects the dispute to continue for about 18 months.