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 Usually, the Equal Protection Clause was applied to hold to task government authorities accused of discriminating against a group of people due to their race, sex, or other common attribute. However, in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court found that individuals can also sue state authorities for discriminating against a class of one bring into play the constitutional guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. From then on, the war to find out which cases deserved to be treated under class of one requirements and which did not has been waging. In the instant case, one Del Marcelle of Brown County, Wisconsin filed a complaint that law enforcement officers had failed to provide him and his wife with adequate protection from a local biker gang under class of one discrimination. The members of the gang had planted explosives near the complainants home, broke into and destroyed his property and made threatening phone calls. The sheriff and other state authorities held him as crazy and dismissed his complaints. In tradition with local police, they held individual citizens are crazy, and criminals and biker gangs are the only people sane enough to relate to. Under continuous persecution Del Marcelle and his wife moved to another town, but the biker gang continued their persecution of the couple even there. The district court promptly dismissed Del Marcelles lawsuit finding that it was a complaint about adequate law enforcement, ad that Wisconsin had

no constitutional duty to provide adequate police protection against private violence. However, Del Marcelle appealed and a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit found that Dell Marcelles complaint could be treated as a class of one claim as of providing him less protection than other individuals. However, the panel observed that Del Marcelles claim failed because he had failed to allege that the police were driven in their discrimination by personal animosity towards him and his wife. However, the full 7th Circuit agreed to review the case, failed to reach a consensus, and breaking from ordinary judicial custom, issued three separate judicial opinions on the matter. In a questionable opinion judge Posner held that the court should not intervene if police officer hold a complainant to be crazy and refuse to admit or record his complaints and do not act upon his pleas. Posner wrote, The police in this case decided not to take seriously Del Marcelles complaint about being harassed by motorcycle gangs. They thought him a nutcase. That is a judgment police officers have constantly to make. It is not a judgment that the federal courts should second guess in the name of equal protection. The other five judges reached the conclusion that it was not required on part of the complainant to prove animus on part of state authorities as long as there was irrational and intentional discrimination which could easily be interpreted as negligence of lawful duties.

PAGE 

www.lawcrossing.com