A jet engine mechanic brought a civil rights lawsuit after a Massachusetts County denied him a permit to perform plumbing on the home he was building. Arguing pro se, Petitioner claimed that the Massachusetts regulation banning homeowners from performing plumbing on their own home —the strictest in the nation—serves no legitimate purpose and instead furthers only illegitimate economic protectionism. Despite his well-pleaded allegations, the district court dismissed his due process claim based on two sentences of analysis. The First Circuit summarily affirmed without briefing or argument. Neither court referenced any of the allegations in his complaint.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether a court may relegate a due process claim to rational basis scrutiny merely because the asserted right is not enumerated in the Constitution or previously recognized as fundamental by the Supreme Court, or whether instead courts must apply the history and tradition test recently affirmed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022).

2. Whether, under the rational basis test, courts must accept a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations when resolving a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

3. Whether, under the rational basis test, courts may uphold a challenged law without any inquiry into the relationship between the government's means and asserted end.

Whether a court may relegate a due process claim to rational basis scrutiny merely because the asserted right is not enumerated in the Constitution or previously recognized as fundamental by the Supreme Court, or whether instead courts must apply the history and tradition test recently affirmed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org.