Sixth Circuit Revives Key Constitutional Claims in Dock Rights Case

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has handed down an important decision in Tamm v. Nerad, Case No. 24-1155, breathing new life into two core constitutional claims brought by Diamond Lake homeowners against a Lincoln Township zoning official. In a ruling issued today, the appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment selective enforcement claims, sending those claims back for further proceedings.

The case arose after longtime lakefront owners Julie Tamm and Roseanna Przybylski found themselves targeted under newly enacted local ordinances that regulate dock use and storage at Diamond Lake’s public parks. For decades, the family had installed and removed a seasonal dock at West Park, just as many other residents had done. After the Township adopted strict ordinances in 2020 and later issued citations to the plaintiffs in 2023, Tamm and Przybylski filed suit alleging retaliation, selective enforcement, and violations of state and federal law. The district court, however, dismissed all of their claims.

In its opinion today, the Sixth Circuit concluded that a jury could reasonably find that the Township’s enforcement actions were motivated by retaliation for the plaintiffs’ earlier lawsuit, Tamm I, which had resulted in a consent judgment clarifying their dock rights. The court also determined that there was sufficient evidence to allow a claim of selective enforcement to proceed, noting that similarly situated residents who had not sued the Township were not cited under the same ordinances. While affirming the dismissal of certain other claims, including preemption and takings theories, the appellate court underscored that the plaintiffs’ core constitutional challenges deserve their day in court.

The ruling carries significance well beyond Diamond Lake. It affirms that government actors cannot wield local ordinances to punish citizens for exercising their constitutional rights, including the right to challenge government action in court. It also reinforces the principle of equal protection, holding that residents may not be singled out for enforcement simply because they previously sought judicial relief.

Although the Sixth Circuit concluded that some of the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by res judicata based on the earlier consent judgment, the plaintiffs firmly disagree with that analysis. However, the question of how far township regulatory rights extends into lake governance is currently being litigated in a separate legal action in Newaygo County Circuit Court, where the issue is being fully contested.

The federal case will now return to the federal district court for trial proceedings on the surviving constitutional claims. As the litigation continues, today’s decision stands as a powerful reminder that accountability and fairness remain bedrock requirements in local governance.

Attorney Philip L. Ellison, who represents the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling, stating: “This decision protects the fundamental principle that citizens should be able to challenge government action without fear of reprisal. Local governments cannot selectively enforce their ordinances to punish those who speak out or defend their rights in court.”