JUSTICES ON THE state’s highest court are wrestling with whether they should be second-guessing the intentions of Nahant town meeting voters who wanted to prevent Northeastern University from developing a stretch of land in the ocean-facing town.

Voters in the tiny North Shore community, which sits on a one-square-mile peninsula that juts into Massachusetts Bay, decided in 2021 to seize, by eminent domain, about 12 of 21 acres of land owned by Northeastern University since the 1960s to preserve it for conservation. In a legal fight that’s climbed all the way to the Supreme Judicial Court, the town is asking the court to approve the land taking, while Northeastern argues that conservation was just a pretext to stand in the way of development, making the seizure an improper use of eminent domain powers.

A lower court ruled by summary judgment without a trial in favor of Northeastern, which has maintained a marine sciences laboratory on the peninsula for decades.

In oral arguments before the SJC on Monday, justices seemed skeptical that, even if they overturned the lower court ruling, the town deserves an immediate ruling in its favor based on the facts before the court. That skepticism seemed to hinge on what Justice Dalia Wendlandt said was continued disagreement about “the motives of the town.”

The dispute dates back to 2018, when Northeastern announced plans to expand its presence with a new Coastal Sustainability Institute, anchored by a 55,000-square-foot building. The facility would be built into and on top of a decommissioned military bunker.

Northeastern’s land is part of East Point, a 29-acre section of Nahant that the town describes as a coastal open area overlooking the Atlantic Ocean, with beaches, a meadow, woodlands, cliffs, and other shoreline. The town voted more than 30 years ago to classify it as a “natural resource area.”

After years of public back and forth over the project, a supermajority of town meeting voters in 2021 authorized the Board of Selectmen to create easements on Northeastern land “for open space, recreation, conservation and/or historic preservation purposes.” This would prevent development on a portion of the site and allow public access.

But Northeastern argued, and a Superior Court judge agreed, that public statements indicated that the main purpose of the vote was to block a building that the residents found aesthetically displeasing. This is a “bad faith” taking, the university claims, intended to get around state law that prevents using local zoning power to heavily restrict land or structures used for educational or religious purposes.

“Blocking a project is not an acceptable use of the awesome power of eminent domain,” the university said in its filings.

Generally speaking, noted Justice Elizabeth Dewar during Monday’s arguments, courts defer to the decision-making of local legislators – in this case, the voters of Nahant’s town meeting. But a 1987 SJC case concluded that even a seemingly proper eminent domain taking can be illegitimate if the dominant reason for the taking was in “bad faith.”

Kevin Martin, the attorney representing Nahant, countered that the dominant reason for the taking was preserving the land for the public. “It’s really important to remember that these easements are not just to preserve the parcel against construction,” he told the justices. “They’re also to ensure access of Nahanters to the parcel for hiking, bike riding, and all the activities people enjoyed on that land.”

The justices grappled with when it might be necessary for them to probe the intentions of a town meeting, in this case by digging into whether Nahant is trying to make legitimate use of eminent domain power to preserve coastal land for public use or engaged in a cynical attempt to block future development.

Wendlandt noted there seem to be “some proper purposes” and “some, perhaps, less than proper purposes” for the eminent domain taking expressed in public discussions. If there are disputes over those motives, she suggested, the case probably should not be decided at summary judgment.

In amicus briefs filed in support of Nahant, the attorney general’s office, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and environmental preservation groups argued that the lower court moved too hastily to rule for Northeastern.

The case was decided incorrectly at the summary judgment stage, Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office wrote, because the lower court judge did not balance whether the land was suited for and would be used for the stated purpose of the vote: public recreation and conservation. Beyond that, the lower court seemed to decide that taking preservation action in response to a specific proposal is a clear indication of bad faith, while the attorney general’s office argues it is just one factor to be considered.

It is difficult, argue the briefs in support of the town, to separate an intention to preserve natural beauty and open space from a desire to stop development that might impede it. Opposition to a particular project should not taint efforts to protect natural landscapes for the public interest, they argue, maintaining that the lower court overstepped in reading bad faith into opposition to the development.

“Preservation of open space and scenic values does not lose its character as a valid public purpose because it precludes certain proposed development,” The Trustees of Reservations wrote in their brief. “In the context of open space preservation, protecting scenic interests and precluding development are typically two sides of the same coin.”

The state’s high court will now decide whether, in this case, they want to wade in to parsing the difference.