Opinion ID: 815370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The “Selective Enforcement” Argument

Text: The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the “selective enforcement” of a law based on an unjustifiable standard. Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 297 (3d Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 125 n.9 (1979). Thus, to establish a selective-enforcement claim, Appellant must demonstrate: “(1) that [it] was treated differently from other similarly situated [entities], and (2) „that this selective treatment was based on an unjustifiable standard, such as race, or religion, or some other arbitrary factor, . . . or to prevent the exercise of a fundamental right.‟” Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 184 n.5 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 125 (3d Cir. 2005)). To maintain its equal protection claim, Appellant must show not only that the administration of § 3060(d) has resulted in “unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike,” but also that there is “an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination” present. Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 8 (1944); see also Jewish Home of E. Pa. v. Ctrs. for Medicare and Medicaid Servs., 693 F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir. 2012) (“[T]o maintain an equal protection claim of this sort, [plaintiff] must provide evidence of discriminatory purpose, not mere unequal treatment or adverse effect.”). Here, we find that Appellant has failed to set forth the necessary allegations. Even if we accept all of Appellant‟s allegations at face value, as we must, we see no sign of “clear and intentional discrimination.” Snowden, 321 U.S. at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Complaint demonstrates only that in some instances, reporters from 48 newspapers in some counties were permitted into the polling place, while reporters in other counties were not. This is insufficient to allege a systemic discriminatory purpose. Accord Jewish Home, 693 F.3d at 363 (finding no “[s]elective discriminatory enforcement” where facts demonstrated only that some facilities were penalized less often than plaintiff). The law cannot provide a constitutional remedy for every situation where a party may feel slighted; claims appealing to the Equal Protection Clause must meet a higher bar. 49