Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker
680 F.3d 194
2d Cir.2012Background
- Commack Kosher operates as a New York Jewish deli certified by a rabbi; plaintiffs are shareholders/officers challenging the Kosher Act.
- Kosher Law Protection Act of 2004 requires labeling, certifier registration, window signs, and certifier qualifications for products marketed as kosher.
- The Act repealed some prior provisions that defined kosher by Orthodox standards and authorized state religious determination.
- The Act preserves secular labeling and disclosure aims, and does not define kosher or empower inspectors to decide religious standing of products.
- Plaintiffs filed suit February 15, 2008 challenging labeling, inspection, and vagueness provisions as unconstitutional, leading to dismissal by the district court in August 2011.
- Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on appeal (May 10, 2012), upholding the Act as constitutional and not vague.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment Clause facial challenge | Kosher Act advances Orthodox Judaism and discriminates. | Law serves secular consumer protection with neutral labeling. | No Establishment Clause violation. |
| Free Exercise challenge | Law burdens religious practice and is not generally applicable. | Law is neutral and generally applicable with rational basis. | No Free Exercise violation. |
| Vagueness challenge | Provisions are vague and permit arbitrary enforcement. | Language provides adequate notice; inspectors review neutral information. | Not void for vagueness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commack Self-Serv. Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Rubin, 294 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2002) (establishment clause framework and historical context adopted in Commack I)
- Commack Self-Serv. Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, 800 F. Supp. 2d 405 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (district court’s secular purpose and general applicability analysis)
- Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) (Lemon framework for evaluating Establishment Clause claims)
- Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (secular purpose/endorsement considerations under Establishment Clause)
- Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutral and generally applicable rule analysis under Free Exercise)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (vagueness and context in statutory interpretation)