Background
Rubicon Real Estate Holdings sought to develop a commercial property in Pontiac, Michigan, for medical marijuana cultivation and processing. The project faced significant delays as the city clerk, Garland Doyle, reviewed permit applications and raised questions about zoning compliance. The project ultimately collapsed when prospective tenants withdrew due to the prolonged timeline. Rubicon sued the city and the clerk, alleging violations of the Due Process Clause, the Takings Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.
The court’s reasoning
The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Regarding the Due Process claim, the court found that Rubicon lacked a legitimate claim of entitlement to the permits because the city retained broad discretion in granting zoning changes and licenses. For the Takings claim, the court ruled that the delays were not extraordinary and were consistent with normal bureaucratic processes. On the Equal Protection claim, Rubicon failed to provide evidence of relevant comparators who were treated differently by the clerk.
As frustrating as those developments surely were for Rubicon, as they are for many others caught in bureaucratic webs, the record here falls well short of clearing the high bar of a constitutional violation.
Rubicon Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. City of Pontiac, 26a0176p.06 (6th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that government officials are not liable for constitutional violations or takings claims based solely on delays in discretionary permitting processes, provided the delays are not extraordinary or in bad faith.