Sixth Circuit, GSL Holdings v. Lyon Township: a withheld building permit, class-of-one equal protection, due process and a limit on emailing a township board

What happened

On November 9, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided GSL Holdings, LLC v. Charter Township of Lyon Township, Michigan, No. 25-1394, an appeal from the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Mathis wrote the opinion for a panel of Judges White, Thapar and Mathis. No separate opinions were filed. The court affirmed summary judgment for the township and its supervisor, John Dolan.

GSL Holdings, a developer, agreed in December 2020 to build a manufacturing facility for a tenant on a parcel in the township with no public sewer access. Under the township's code, construction could not begin until GSL obtained a septic permit from the Oakland County Health Division. After a GSL representative emailed the entire township board to complain about delays, the township's attorney called the email "inappropriate" and asked that she "not communicate directly with the members of the Township Board in this fashion," citing Michigan's Open Meetings Act. In April 2021 a township coordinator wrote that, "[p]er [Township supervisor] John Dolan, it has been decided not to issue the building permit until after your utility [pre-construction meeting]." That meeting required the septic permit. The project did not go ahead, and GSL sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

What the opinion says

Equal protection. GSL brought a "class-of-one" claim. It pointed to a neighbouring company that the township let begin construction around 2017 before it had a septic permit. The court assumed that company was similarly situated but held that GSL had not negated "every conceivable reason" for the different treatment. The township conceded that the earlier permit broke township policy, and the court said that "it is conceivable, as the Township asserts, that its earlier decision ... was simply a mistake." On animus, the court held that the frustration shown in emails from the township's outside attorney and an engineering consultant could not be attributed to the building department, which made the final decision. It added that hostility "related to the [Township]'s official duties" is not the personal malice that can support such a claim.

Procedural due process. Under Michigan law, a developer has a vested property interest only if it holds a lawful permit and has done construction work "of a substantial character." Even assuming the permits were issued in March 2021, the court found that GSL did no such work before the township withheld them. It called this a "strict rule" that Michigan courts "have refused to weaken."

Substantive due process. The court held that following the code's requirement to "secure all necessary permits from other agencies" before construction was not arbitrary or irrational, because GSL did not challenge the ordinance itself. Denying GSL's application for speculative-building status had a rational basis: township guidelines make an applicant ineligible for a tax abatement while it has litigation pending against the township.

First Amendment retaliation. The court held that the claim failed at the first element. The attorney's direction was content neutral because it addressed "Lukosavich's methods of communication." It was narrowly tailored to the township's interest in complying with the Open Meetings Act and left other channels open: "She merely said that GSL cannot do so all at once via email." GSL argued that its email was no more than a "chance gathering" that could not violate the Act. The court answered that the township "need not show that Lukosavich's email actually violated the Act," only that the restriction was narrowly tailored to avoiding potential liability. It concluded: "The Township's modest restriction on the way citizens may contact the board passes constitutional muster."

Because it affirmed on the merits, the court did not reach Dolan's qualified immunity or GSL's challenges to rulings on damages and its expert.

Where it sits in the record

The opinion applies the class-of-one framework of Village of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000) and the Sixth Circuit's 2025 decision in Rockwood Auto Parts, Inc. v. Monroe County. For time, place and manner restrictions it relies on Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) and Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984). One day later, a different Sixth Circuit panel that also included Judge Mathis decided Boone v. Lowell Area Schools, another First Amendment case about a Michigan public body's limits on a citizen's communications. That case is covered in a separate update.