Most Equal Protection claims allege discrimination based on membership in a recognized protected class, such as race or sex. A class-of-one claim departs from that model: the plaintiff alleges that they, individually, were singled out for arbitrarily different treatment compared to others similarly situated, with no rational basis for the difference, independent of any group-based motive.

To succeed, a plaintiff generally must identify specific comparators who are similarly situated in all material respects, show they were treated differently, and show the difference in treatment lacks any rational basis — a high bar, since even a plausible, non-arbitrary justification the government could offer typically defeats the claim. Courts have narrowed the theory's availability in the public employment context, generally declining to recognize class-of-one claims arising from discretionary employment decisions, reflecting concern that the theory could otherwise convert routine, individualized government decisions into constitutional litigation.

A Juricratic simulation of a class-of-one claim can model comparator strength as the dominant dial in the matter — since the theory turns almost entirely on how closely situated the plaintiff's chosen comparators are and how thin the government's rational-basis justification is, sweeping comparator similarity from weak to strong shows a sharper outcome swing than in most other equal protection theories.

Counsel building a class-of-one claim invests heavily in identifying and documenting comparators who are truly similarly situated in every material respect, since a comparator with any material distinguishing characteristic — one the government could point to as a rational basis for different treatment — is often enough to defeat the claim regardless of how arbitrary the treatment otherwise appears.