The legal battle, Lucinda LC and Wheatley v. Jay Som et al., began after Virginia officials launched an enforcement investigation into Lucinda LC and June Wheatley. The duo manages nine apartment units on behalf of Wheatley’s elderly father’s marital trust.
The state opened the probe under its source-of-funds law, which prohibits landlords from refusing tenants based on their source of income, such as federal housing vouchers. In response to the investigation, the landlords filed a lawsuit in federal court against state officials, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment and federal law.
A federal district court initially dismissed the landlords’ case, ruling that the lawsuit was “unripe.” The lower court concluded that because Virginia had not yet made a final determination or issued formal charges, it was too premature for a federal court to intervene.
However, the Liberty Justice Center and the Manhattan Institute argue in their newly filed brief that waiting for a final state decision forces severe, immediate hardship onto small businesses. According to the court filings, the ongoing investigation itself inflicts financial and operational damage that cannot be undone later.
For a small, family-run operation, the groups state that the cost of hiring attorneys, responding to agency demands, and participating in mandatory conciliation sessions drains vital resources. Furthermore, Wheatley is a licensed real estate salesperson in Virginia, and the groups note that the open investigation puts her professional license, reputation, and livelihood in jeopardy.
The amicus brief highlights a structural legal dilemma created by the lower court’s ruling. Under a Supreme Court precedent known as the Younger doctrine, federal courts are generally required to abstain from interfering once formal state enforcement proceedings are officially underway.
The legal groups argue that if a small landlord cannot sue before formal enforcement because the case is deemed “unripe,” and cannot sue after enforcement begins due to federal abstention rules, they are completely locked out of protecting their federal constitutional rights in a federal forum.
“No one should have to wait for the government to finish violating their rights before they can ask a federal court to step in,” said Reilly Stephens, Director of Amicus Practice at the Liberty Justice Center. “When a state investigation imposes real costs and legal burdens on a small business, that is not hypothetical. That is exactly the kind of hardship federal courts exist to review.”
The organizations are formally asking the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the district court’s ripeness determination. They want the court to rule that the active investigation satisfies the legal requirements for immediate review, allowing the landlords’ motion for a preliminary injunction to be heard on its merits.
READ: 8 Years In The Shadows: Connecticut Mom Charged After Newborn Left Alive In Dumpster
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
