Fourth Circuit reverses dismissal of civil rights case against Prince George's County

Richmond, VA — On February 3, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant ruling in Richardson v. Prince George's County, vacating the district court's dismissal of Randy Richardson's civil rights lawsuit and remanding the case for further proceedings. The unanimous three-judge panel found that Richardson had plausibly alleged that Prince George's County's Department of Permitting, Inspections, and Enforcement (DPIE) engaged in discriminatory practices that prevented him from opening his business while allowing large, politically connected corporations to operate under the same conditions.

The case centers on Richardson's efforts to open Town Hall Live, a restaurant and music venue, in leased space at the Shops at Iverson Mall in Temple Hills, Maryland. Richardson, who is Black, entered into a lease agreement in January 2020 and immediately began the permitting process. What followed, according to his complaint, was a years-long pattern of obstruction, selective enforcement, and discriminatory treatment that stood in stark contrast to how the County treated larger businesses at the same location.

The facts alleged in Richardson's complaint paint a troubling picture. DPIE employees told Richardson he could not obtain a use and occupancy permit until Iverson Mall resolved certain permit deficiencies with the County. Yet while Richardson waited, large corporations including Burlington, Chipotle, and Shoppers World opened stores in the same mall without facing similar barriers. When Richardson asked DPIE employees why these businesses were permitted to operate while he was blocked, they had no answer—specifically claiming that the answer was "above their paygrade."

The County's treatment of Richardson grew increasingly aggressive. DPIE issued a correction order with a $6,500 fine for allegedly lacking permits that Richardson had already obtained. A large business sharing the same sprinkler system faced no similar enforcement. When Richardson paid $5,500 to move the permit process forward, DPIE issued additional correction orders and fines totaling more than $4,000 for alleged violations that Richardson asserts were either false or trivial, including a $1,000 fine for plugging internet equipment into existing outlets.

The situation became so problematic that the Director of Government Accountability in the County Executive's office contacted Richardson to apologize, acknowledging that DPIE was "unnecessarily harassing" him and should not be "targeting" his property. The County eventually offered Richardson a $500,000 settlement, which he rejected. He filed suit in federal court instead.

The district court dismissed Richardson's complaint at the pleadings stage, finding that he lacked standing because he had never formally applied for a use and occupancy permit and that his claims were not ripe. The Fourth Circuit disagreed on both counts.

Writing for the unanimous panel, Senior Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan explained that Richardson's injury was not the denial of a permit but rather the discriminatory barriers the County erected that prevented him from obtaining one. The court cited Supreme Court precedent holding that when a government entity creates barriers that make it harder for members of one group to obtain a benefit than members of another group, the injury is the unequal treatment itself, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.

The court found Richardson's allegations demonstrated he was "able and ready" to apply for a permit, as required for standing. He transferred a liquor license to the property address, performed substantial work to prepare the space, and repeatedly asked when he could apply for a permit, only to be discouraged from proceeding. The court also rejected the County's ripeness argument, finding that Richardson adequately alleged any formal permit application would have been futile given DPIE's repeated statements that he could not receive a permit until the mall's issues were resolved, even as other businesses opened without such restrictions.

Justly Prudent Managing Attorney Jordan D. Howlette, who argued the case before the Fourth Circuit, emphasized the ruling's broader significance. "This decision affirms that minority business owners cannot be subjected to discriminatory permitting practices simply because they lack the political connections of large corporations. When a government agency erects barriers for some while clearing the path for others based on race or political status, that is a constitutional violation regardless of whether the victim ever received a formal denial letter."

The case now returns to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where the parties have already conducted substantial discovery. The Fourth Circuit noted that consideration of the merits of Richardson's claims will likely occur in summary judgment proceedings.

The case is Randy Richardson v. Prince George's County, et al. (Case No. 23-1235), decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.