191 A.D.3d 52
N.Y. App. Div.2020Background
- In late 2018–spring 2019 a large measles outbreak occurred in Williamsburg and Borough Park (Brooklyn), with most cases among minors and many chains of transmission still active by April 2019.
- The NYC Department of Health conducted extensive outreach and increased voluntary vaccinations, but cases continued to rise despite those efforts.
- On April 9, 2019 the Commissioner issued emergency orders; on April 17, 2019 the Board of Health adopted a resolution requiring MMR vaccination for any person >6 months who lived, worked, or attended school/childcare in four specified zip codes unless immune or medically exempt; violations exposed persons to civil fines.
- Petitioners (residents and parents asserting religious objections) brought a hybrid declaratory/injunctive action and CPLR article 78 proceeding arguing the resolution exceeded authority, violated religious/parental rights, was arbitrary and capricious, and improperly used nuisance power to mandate adult vaccination.
- The Supreme Court denied relief; the Appellate Division rejected petitioners’ challenges, upheld the Board’s authority and reasonableness, reserved any challenge to the amount of fines as premature, and ordered a declaratory judgment that the April 17 resolution was valid. The Board later rescinded the resolution after the outbreak subsided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / Justiciability | Appeal is academic because Board rescinded resolution; court should dismiss. | Exception applies because issue is likely to recur and evade review (public‑health emergencies). | Appeal not dismissed as moot; exception to mootness applies and merits reviewed. |
| Authority to mandate vaccinations / use of nuisance power | Board exceeded authority and used nuisance doctrine to circumvent statutory limits on mandatory adult vaccination. | Charter and Administrative Code give Board broad authority over communicable diseases and to adopt vaccination measures; outbreak may be declared a public nuisance and abated. | Board acted within its statutory authority; declaring outbreak a public nuisance and imposing a temporary, geographically‑limited vaccination mandate was lawful. |
| Arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion / evidentiary sufficiency | Mandate was unreasonable; petitioners submitted medical affidavits opposing vaccine safety/effectiveness. | Department relied on prevailing medical consensus and outbreak data; agencies get deference in public‑health expertise. | Not arbitrary or capricious; substantial evidence and deference to agency experts justified the action. |
| Free Exercise / parental rights (constitutional challenge) | Resolution burdened religious beliefs and parental rights; strict scrutiny should apply and least‑restrictive means were not used. | Resolution is a neutral, generally applicable public‑health rule; Smith governs; rational basis applies; even under strict scrutiny interest is compelling and the measure narrow. | Neutral law of general applicability; rational‑basis review applies; resolution upheld. Even under strict scrutiny, the geographically and temporally limited mandate survived. Hybrid‑rights claim not colorable. |
| Challenge to fines / excessive punishment | Fines (e.g., $1,000/day) would be excessive and unconstitutional. | Amounts and enforcement mechanisms were unspecified; any specific fine challenge is premature. | Challenge to hypothetical fines is premature; a person fined may later litigate excessive or unconstitutional fine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1905) (upholding state's authority to mandate vaccination under the police power).
- Garcia v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 31 N.Y.3d 601 (N.Y. 2018) (Board of Health may adopt vaccination rules for children in city‑regulated programs; City Board has independent vaccination authority).
- Matter of Viemeister, 179 N.Y. 235 (N.Y. 1904) (early recognition that compulsory vaccination is a reasonable exercise of police power).
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (U.S. 1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws need not satisfy strict scrutiny under Free Exercise Clause).
- Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317 (N.Y. 1962) (court may enter declaratory relief when merits decided).