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?

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: 1. 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? 2. 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? 3. 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 si tuated parties? Is the ii – inequality exacerbated when the comparators are officials of the defendant government agency and profit from the differential treatment? iii –