THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF LEGAL JOBS ON EARTH
LawCrossing Legal Daily News Feature
Ten Judges Stuck Over Class of ‘’One’’ The invocation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in “class of one” cases has always been a bone of contention among experts of jurisprudence, and it proved no less for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals which found it divided fifty-fifty on Thursday over the same. In effect, the judgment of the lower court, which had been appealed against, prevailed by default, because the judges at the superior court failed to reach a decision.
05/21/12
no constitutional duty to provide adequate police protection against private violence.
Usually, the Equal Protection Clause was applied to hold to task government authorities accused of
However, Del Marcelle appealed and a three-judge
discriminating against a group of people due to their
panel of the 7th Circuit found that Dell Marcelle’s
race, sex, or other common attribute. However, in
complaint could be treated as a “class of one” claim as
2000, the U.S. Supreme Court found that individuals
of providing him less protection than other individuals.
can also sue state authorities for discriminating against
However, the panel observed that Del Marcelle’s
a “class of one” bring into play the constitutional
claim failed because he had failed to allege that the
guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. From then
police were driven in their discrimination by personal
on, the war to find out which cases deserved to be
animosity towards him and his wife.
treated under “class of one” requirements and which However, the full 7th Circuit agreed to review the case,
did not has been waging.
failed to reach a consensus, and breaking from ordinary In the instant case, one Del Marcelle of Brown County,
judicial custom, issued three separate judicial opinions
Wisconsin filed a complaint that law enforcement
on the matter.
officers had failed to provide him and his wife with adequate protection from a local biker gang under
In a questionable opinion judge Posner held that the
“class of one” discrimination. The members of the
court should not intervene if police officer hold a
gang had planted explosives near the complainant’s
complainant to be crazy and refuse to admit or record
home, broke into and destroyed his property and
his complaints and do not act upon his pleas. Posner
made threatening phone calls. The sheriff and other
wrote, “The police in this case decided not to take
state authorities held him as crazy and dismissed his
seriously Del Marcelle’s complaint about being harassed
complaints. In tradition with local police, they held
by motorcycle gangs. They thought him a nutcase. That
individual citizens are crazy, and criminals and biker
is a judgment police officers have constantly to make.
gangs are the only people sane enough to relate to.
It is not a judgment that the federal courts should second guess in the name of equal protection.”
Under continuous persecution Del Marcelle and his wife moved to another town, but the biker gang continued
The other five judges reached the conclusion that it
their persecution of the couple even there.
was not required on part of the complainant to prove animus on part of state authorities as long as there was
The district court promptly dismissed Del Marcelle’s
irrational and intentional discrimination which could
lawsuit finding that it was a complaint about
easily be interpreted as negligence of lawful duties.
adequate law enforcement, ad that Wisconsin had
PAGE
www.lawcrossing.com