Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity v. York County, By and Through Its Manager, Joshua Edwards, et al.

The Fourteenth Amendment forbids arbitrary and irrational executive action. In land-use cases, the courts of appeals apply materially different standards in deciding when allegedly unauthorized executive permitting may support substantive due process review. The Second Circuit has recognized that land-use action tainted by “fundamental procedural irregularity,” including action taken without legal authority, may be sufficiently arbitrary to support a substantive due process claim. Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778, 789 (2d Cir. 2007). The Third Circuit, by contrast, requires conscience-shocking misconduct beyond even bad-faith violations of state law. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Twp. of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 394, 399–400 (3d Cir. 2003). The Eleventh Circuit generally forecloses substantive due process review of executive deprivations of state-created land-use rights altogether. Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco Cnty., 915 F.3d 1292, 1297, 1299–1301 (11th Cir. 2019). The Question Presented is: Whether, and under what standard, local executive officials’ issuance of land-use permits after a local board of zoning appeals has ruled the proposed use prohibited may support a claim of arbitrary executive action under the Fourteenth Amendment.