470 F.Supp.3d 197
N.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (Association of Jewish Camp Operators and four parents) sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Governor Cuomo’s statewide Executive Orders (including Exec. Orders 202.8 and 202.10) that prohibited overnight children’s summer camps in New York for summer 2020.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Free Exercise Clause (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process parental rights, a hybrid free-exercise/due-process claim, and a New York constitutional free-exercise claim.
- Plaintiffs argued the ban was not neutral or generally applicable because the State exempted or effectively tolerated comparable secular activities (e.g., mass protests, college dormitories, day camps) while forbidding overnight camps (which they say are central to Jewish religious life).
- Defendant (Governor) defended the ban as a neutral, generally applicable public-health measure rationally related (and under Jacobson narrowly tailored) to preventing COVID-19 spread; he also argued legislative/immunity defenses and emphasized health officials’ findings that overnight camps pose unique contagion risks.
- After a June 30, 2020 hearing and supplemental briefing, the court applied Jacobson/rational-basis review for emergency public-health measures, concluded Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits, found irreparable harm but held the public interest and balance of equities favored the State, and denied the preliminary injunction (Order dated July 6, 2020).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the executive orders violated the Free Exercise Clause (targeting religion / not generally applicable) | Plaintiffs: bans burden Jewish overnight camps while exempting comparable secular activities (mass protests, some dormitories), so strict scrutiny applies and the ban is not narrowly tailored. | Cuomo: orders are facially neutral, generally applicable public-health rules rationally related to preventing COVID-19; exemptions are not sufficiently comparable to trigger strict scrutiny. | Court: orders were neutral and generally applicable; Jacobson/rational-basis review applies; Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on Free Exercise claim. |
| Whether Jacobson/public-health deferential standard applies (and its effect on scrutiny) | Plaintiffs: traditional Free Exercise framework should control; Jacobson is inapplicable or limited. | Cuomo: Jacobson governs emergency public-health restrictions; courts must defer to public-health judgments and apply rational-basis review. | Court: applied Jacobson and related precedent (including S. Bay), used rational-basis review and refused to second-guess public-health judgments absent arbitrary/oppressive action. |
| Whether parental substantive due process right to direct upbringing/education was infringed | Parents: ban unreasonably interferes with their fundamental right to direct children’s religious education. | Cuomo: decision is a non-arbitrary, public-health regulation; not conscience-shocking or arbitrary under due process standards. | Court: parental right is protected but the closure was not arbitrary or conscience-shocking; Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on due process claim. |
| Whether Governor is entitled to legislative immunity | Plaintiffs: N/A (argued against immunity). | Cuomo: actions were legislative/policymaking and immune from injunctive relief. | Court: rejected legislative-immunity defense for these executive orders—orders were not legislative in form and immunity would improperly shield executive emergency acts from review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (states may impose public-health restraints in emergencies; courts afford deference unless measures lack a real or substantial relation to public health or are arbitrary/oppressive)
- S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) (Court denied injunctive relief challenging pandemic restrictions and emphasized deference to state public-health officials)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (governing standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutrality and general applicability principles under the Free Exercise Clause)
- Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws need only a rational basis even if they incidentally burden religion)
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (parents’ liberty interest to direct the upbringing and education of their children)
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (state must not prefer one religion over another)
- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30 (2d Cir.) (preliminary-injunction standards and exceptions in the Second Circuit)