Whether a selective property reassessment by a town assessor violates the Equal Protection Clause through discriminatory taxation practices

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented for review are *. 1. Whether the selective reassessment of 380 Claremont Road by Town Assessor Edward Kerwin, conducted without a district-wide revaluation or the presence of significant property improvements, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating unconstitutional disparities in property taxation. 2. Whether the spot assessment conducted by the Town Assessor, which disproportionately targeted properties that had recently sold, violates New Jersey’s constitutional and statutory requirements for uniform property taxation, as established in N.J.S.A. 54:4-23 ; and related case law, thus raising a substantial federal question of equal protection. 3. Whether the practice of spot assessing real property, as applied by Borough of Bernardsville, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in light of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in West Milford Tp. v. Van Decker, 120 N.J. 354 (1990), which held that discriminatory spot assessments contravene principles of uniformity and fairness in taxation. 4. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court should intervene to resolve the conflict between federal equal protection principles and state practices of property assessment, particularly when such practices lead to discriminatory tax burdens on specific property owners without a rational basis for differential treatment.