Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
David P. Demarest v. Town of Underhill, Vermont, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 24-147 · judgment January 14, 2025
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
Frequently in these troubled times, citizens and municipal governments are experiencing conflict. For recent illustrations, see Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013) and Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87 (2018). In the Lozman cases, this Court had to intervene to protect a property owner who had been harassed by his city government in retaliation for his speaking out at public meetings. This case presents similar issues of municipal retaliation against an outspoken citizen. The questions presented are:
-
When a property owner exercises his First Amendment right to speak out at public meetings, does it violate that Constitutional guarantee when the governmental body punishes the citizen by interfering with access to his property?
-
When local government treats similarly situated property owners differently for no valid reason, particularly when some of those other, comparator-owners are officials or employees of the very agency engaging in the disparate treatment, has a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee occurred?
-
In order to state an equal protection claim under the Court’s standards for a “class of one,” is it sufficient for the complaint to allege different treatment for similarly situated parties? Is the
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Michael M. Berger
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
For respondent
Kevin Louis Kite
Carroll, Boe & Kite, P.C.
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- May 19 2025Petition DENIED.
- Apr 23 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2025.
- Apr 17 2025Waiver of right of respondent Underhill, VT, et al. to respond filed.
- Apr 14 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 19, 2025)