Equal Protection

Subscribe to Equal Protection via RSS

The most easily recognizable equal protection claim is one in which the plaintiff claims membership in a protected group, and some form of discrimination against the class. Another type of equal protection claim is the “class of one” claim under Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (per curiam), where the Court held that a landowner who claimed village officials retaliated against her for winning an earlier lawsuit againstthem was entitled to bring a claim for an equal protectionviolation even though she was not a member of any protected class, or any group at all. If she was being singled out from others who were similarly situated for disparate treatement, she had a claim. The latest case is in the latter category.

In SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, No. 08-1512 (1st Cir. Nov. 6, 2008), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit…

Continue Reading Pleading Class of One Equal Protection Land Use Claims

Thanks to David Breemer at Pacific Legal Foundation for calling our attention to this recent Ninth Circuit case.  In North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, No. 05-16069 (May 13, 2008), a northern California landowner claimed the city’s delays in processing acondominium permit violated its substantive due process and equalprotection rights.  The Ninth Circuit dismissed both of the claims, but reaffirmed that  Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) is a dead letter. 

Armendariz held that in land use cases, the property owner waslimited to regulatory takings, and could not assert other causes of action.  This had the effect of subjecting all federal constitutional claims related to property to the bizarre Williamson County ripeness rules, which require among other things that a takings claimant show she has been denied  compensation by the state before coming to federal court.  Armendariz thus forced property owners…

Continue Reading 9th Circuit: Substantive Due Process in Land Use Cases (Armendariz is Still Dead)

To all those who attended today’s seminar, thank you.  Here are the links to the cases I mentioned.  From the morning session on Case Law Update:

  • Franco – District of Columbia Court of Appeals – allegations of pretext cannot be summarily dismissed
  • Goldstein v. Pataki – Second Circuit – government’s claim of public use trump claims of pretext – cert. petition filed March 31, 2008
  • Brescia – shoreline setback and equitable estoppel – HAWSCT holds you gotta get your “official assurances” from the right party
  • Private agreements and public process – development and settlement agreements not a substitute for zoning process

From the afternoon session…

Continue Reading Cases and Links From Today’s Seminar

A complaint has been filed in U.S. District Court against the mayor of Kauai County, the county  Department of Planning, and the Planning Commission over the Coconut Beach development.  The complaint seeks relief for violations of equal protection, and federal civil rights laws.  Charley Foster has some background on the case here.  Download the complaint here.Continue Reading Federal Equal Protection Land Use Case Filed

It’s a pretty rare event when a court invalidates a law for violating the Equal Protection clauses of either the Hawaii or U.S. Constitution under rational basis review.  In Silva v. City & County of Honolulu, No. 27385 (Aug. 10, 2007), the Hawaii Supreme Court did just that, holding that Haw. Rev. Stat. § 46-72 was irrational, and violated the Hawaii Constitution.  More here.Continue Reading 2007 Land Use in Review: Hawaii Supreme Court Lowers the Bar in Equal Protection “Rational Basis” Analysis

“Rational basis” judicial review in equal protection law, as every law student knows, means virtually no review.  As long as the government provides a “plausible” justification for its discrimination between “non-suspect” classes, a court should defer to the legislature’s judgment and uphold the classification.   That is why it is also known as the “minimum rationality” test.

What this means is that if the government is discriminating and it does not involve race, religion, or another protected class, the legislature is supposed to have a free hand, and government lawyers are free to make up justifications for the classification in court, even if the legislature did not think of them.  Under traditional “rational basis” review, it doesn’t matter what the legislature actually thought, but that it “rationally could have believed” that the classification was appropriate.

Thus, it’s a pretty rare event when a court invalidates a law for violating the Equal…

Continue Reading ▪ HAWSCT Lowers The Bar in Equal Protection “Rational Basis” Analysis

Recently, I was a guest on Jay Fidell’s ThinkTech program on Hawaii Public Radio, talking about legal issues that may arise when legislation is targeted at specific individuals or companies (what I refer to as “single victim legislation”). 

The issue raised its head when the Hawaii Legislature seemed ready to consider a proposal requiring one company — and one company only — to undertake an environmental impact statement before beginning its interisland ferry service.  Further background here and here. 

In short, whenever the government attempts to change the ground rules mid-stream, it raises several concerns:

  • Contracts Clause – the US Constitution prohibits a state from enacting a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”  This prohibits a state legislature from altering the terms of a contract existing at the time of the law’s passage, especially when directed at specific parties.  A law is even more suspect when a state is

…
Continue Reading ▪ Legal Issues in Single Victim Legislation