COMMACK SELF-SERVICE KOSHER MEATS, INC. v. Hooker
800 F. Supp. 2d 405
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Commack Kosher challenges NY Agri & Markets Law §§ 201-a through 201-d as applied to labeling/marketing of foods represented as kosher.
- Act of 2004 (Kosher Law Protection Act) revised prior statutes, retaining non- challenged labeling/disclosure aspects.
- Plaintiffs allege violations of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and due process vagueness; defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Act requires disclosure of kosher certifier qualifications, post certification forms, and maintain records/registrations; creates a public registry/website.
- Court previously concluded portions of earlier version unconstitutional; the current Act aims to curb fraud in kosher labeling without defining kosher.
- This motion turns on facial constitutional challenges to the Act’s structure and purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment Clause challenge to the Act | Act endorses religion by labeling kosher; unconstitutional under Lemon. | Act is neutral, generally applicable labeling/disclosure; protects consumers from fraud. | Lemon test satisfied; no excessive entanglement; act passes Establishment Clause. |
| Free Exercise challenge: regulation of religious practice | Act impermissibly regulates Jewish kashrut practice. | Act does not regulate religious practice; informs consumers about certifiers. | Not a regulation of religious practice; burdens are incidental and neutral. |
| Least restrictive means under Free Exercise | There exists a less restrictive method to prevent fraud. | labeling/registration is a neutral, generally applicable approach adequate to deter fraud. | Rational basis review applied; scheme is permissible and not narrowly tailored to religious practice. |
| Vagueness challenge | Statutes lack notice and invite arbitrary enforcement. | Statutes provide sufficient guidance; no demonstrated vagueness in practice. | Not unconstitutionally vague; valid in majority of intended applications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (three-part test for Establishment Clause challenges)
- Skoros v. City of New York, 437 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 2006) (endorsement and entanglement concerns under Lemon)
- Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Rubin, 294 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2002) (established Lemon framework and secular purpose in prior ruling)
- Commack I, 106 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (initial invalidation of portions of earlier Kosher labeling statute)
- Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (strict scrutiny framework for religious burdens)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (stricter scrutiny for targeting religious practices)
- Fifth Ave. Presbyterian Church v. City of New York, 293 F.3d 570 (2d Cir. 2002) (application of generally applicable laws to religion)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (vagueness and notice in statutory interpretation context)
- McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (religious purpose and display of religious texts; objective observer standard)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (U.S. Supreme Court 1963) (standard for balancing religious burden and state interests)