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

Heading: The “Inconsistent Application” Argument

Text: Finally, we address Appellant‟s allegation that, in the past, reporters were permitted to enter polling places and photograph elected officials casting their votes. It is wellestablished that “the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement [of a law] is not in itself a federal constitutional violation.” Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962); see also Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Harrigan, 791 F.2d 34, 35 (3d Cir. 1986) (“A prosecutor is not bound to use the habitual criminal statute in every case to which it could be applied.”). Here, the issue lies not in the inconsistent application of the statute to Appellants, but in the absence of any allegations suggesting some invidious intent. Appellant has not set forth sufficient factual allegations to allow this Court to draw the reasonable inference that the disparate treatment of Appellant‟s own reporters was occasioned by some specific agenda aimed at discriminating against Appellant‟s personnel in particular.27 To hold, without more, that the onagain/off-again enforcement of § 3060(d) amounts to an Equal Protection Clause violation would unduly — and imprudently — expand the reach of the Clause. We decline to do so, and instead affirm the District Court. 27 For example, Appellant presents no allegations that its reporters were barred from the polling place for printing news items or editorials that were critical of the government. See Capital Cities, 797 F.2d at 1176. 50