Appellant constituted a legitimate class of one, and this provides a basis for Congress’s decision to proceed with dispatch with respect to his materials.

The sentence uses equal-protection-style language (“class of one”) to justify a targeted legislative response: Congress could rationally treat a single individual as a distinct category when the circumstances are unique and urgent. Read in context, it likely addresses a constitutional challenge to a statute or congressional action aimed at securing, seizing, or expediting control over one person’s “materials” (e.g., documents, recordings, or other sensitive items). The reasoning suggests that individualized treatment is not automatically illegitimate; if the person’s situation is singular and the governmental interest is pressing, Congress may act “with dispatch” without violating general norms against arbitrary classification.