## Facts

- The Eichenlaubs owned two parcels of land in the Township of Indiana, Pennsylvania.
- They sought township approval to use one parcel for residential purposes and to use part of the other parcel in connection with their landscaping business.
- The township initially refused the Eichenlaubs’ application.
- Over time, the township imposed a series of requirements and the Eichenlaubs submitted revised plans in response.
- As the dispute continued, the Eichenlaubs publicly complained that the township’s actions were arbitrary and aimed at restricting the use of their land.
- The Eichenlaubs alleged that township officials retaliated against them for their public statements, including by increasing their property-tax bill by a factor of ten and refusing to allow utility companies to provide service to their property, along with other alleged retaliatory acts.
- The Eichenlaubs filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the township.
- In the underlying appeal, the Third Circuit held that, for the Eichenlaubs to establish a substantive due process violation based on the township’s conduct, the challenged actions had to meet the “shocks the conscience” standard.
- The 2007 filing referenced by the citation is a petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case after the Third Circuit’s decision.

## Issues

1. Whether substantive due process claims arising from a local land-use dispute require proof of government conduct that “shocks the conscience.”
2. Whether the alleged pattern of retaliatory land-use and related municipal actions (including a major tax increase and interference with utility service) could satisfy substantive due process under the correct standard.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari to review the Third Circuit’s approach to substantive due process in this land-use setting.

## Decision

- The petitioners sought Supreme Court review of the Third Circuit’s requirement that land-use substantive due process claims must satisfy the “shocks the conscience” standard.
- The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, leaving the Third Circuit’s disposition in place.
- Because certiorari was denied, the Supreme Court did not issue a merits opinion and did not resolve the substantive due process question presented in the petition.

## Legal Principles

- A petition for certiorari is a request for discretionary Supreme Court review; it is not a merits decision.
- A denial of certiorari does not constitute approval or disapproval of the lower court’s reasoning and carries no precedential ruling on the merits.
- In the underlying Third Circuit decision that prompted the petition, land-use substantive due process liability required conduct so egregious that it “shocks the conscience,” not merely asserted unfairness, delay, or hostility in local permitting and zoning administration.
- The certiorari stage posture left the Third Circuit’s standard as the controlling rule for that circuit in comparable land-use substantive due process claims.

## Conclusion

This case brief concerns a certiorari petition (not a Supreme Court merits opinion) arising from the Eichenlaubs’ § 1983 challenge to the Township of Indiana’s handling of their land-use requests and alleged retaliation; the petition sought review of the Third Circuit’s “shocks the conscience” requirement for substantive due process in this context, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving the Third Circuit’s approach intact without a merits ruling.


Petition for Certiorari in Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana, 2007 WL 1835543 (2007)