Background
Kenneth Deal served one term on the City of Monroe Board of Adjustment before being removed by the City Council during his second term without notice or a hearing. Deal sued under Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code, alleging a violation of his procedural due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, ruling that Deal had no constitutionally protected property interest in his board seat.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the standard that a property interest must stem from an independent source such as state law and cannot be based on a unilateral expectation. The court found that North Carolina law and city ordinances granted the City of Monroe broad discretion to create, abolish, and appoint members to the Board of Adjustment. Because the City could remove Deal at any time with or without cause, he lacked a legitimate claim of entitlement to his seat. The court distinguished prior North Carolina cases involving mandated boards, noting that the Board of Adjustment was discretionary in nature. Consequently, the court held that Deal failed to establish a cognizable property interest, rendering it unnecessary to address whether the procedures used were constitutionally inadequate.
Because the City here maintains discretion over whether to create or abolish their board of adjustment, appoint members to those boards, and to determine the selection and compensation process of board of adjustment members, we conclude that Deal had no cognizable property interest in his seat on the BOA.
Kenneth Deal v. City of Monroe, No. 25-2148 (4th Cir. July 8, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that municipal officials serving on discretionary boards generally cannot claim a property interest in their positions, limiting the scope of procedural due process protections for such roles.