Whether All Rights To Due Process Required By Federal, State, And Municipal Law May Be Denied Because One Lacks Entitlement To A Government Benefit Solely Due To The Existence Of Discretion

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner applied to the city of Ketchum, Idaho, for a conditional use permit to construct a gas station on property zoned for that use. Under Idaho law, a conditional use permit application (CUP) involves a discretionary process. The process is heavily regulated by both municipal ordinances and state statutes, which specify mandatory procedures for consideration of the application. The city deliberately ignored all mandatory procedural requirements, such as a right to be heard, and refused to process the application. The application was never considered, resulting in proven procedural and substantive due process violations and a suit for damages pursuant to 42 USC 1983. The state district court dismissed all of Bracken’s claims. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that Bracken was not entitled to damages for apparent due process deprivations, and dismissed Petitioner’s 1983 causes of action, for the sole reason that the city ultimately retained discretion to grant or deny the permit. The question presented is: Whether All Rights To Due Process Required By Federal, State, And Municipal Law May Be Denied Because One Lacks Entitlement To A Government Benefit Solely Due To The Existence Of Discretion