478 F.Supp.3d 372
N.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (five individuals) sued State and County officials challenging New York’s 50-person limit on non-essential gatherings as applied to their planned weddings; venues also operate as restaurants.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the 50-person cap against their weddings (one ~120 persons; another ~175), arguing religious, speech/association, equal protection, ultra vires, and Article 78 claims.
- Defendants argued (inter alia) pandemic-deference under Jacobson, that the restriction is neutral and rationally related to public health, that exemptions (e.g., restaurants, graduations, demonstrations) are justified, and raised service and jurisdictional defenses.
- The County threatened enforcement against the venue; venue owner declared it would follow state restaurant safety rules for the weddings.
- The Court focused on the equal protection claim, found plaintiffs likely to succeed, presumed irreparable harm from a constitutional violation, and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the 50-person limit as to these weddings, subject to compliance with applicable restaurant safety rules (including 50% capacity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs showed likelihood of success warranting a preliminary injunction | 50-person cap treats similar conduct differently (weddings vs. restaurant dining); plaintiffs’ weddings would follow restaurant safety rules, so discriminatory treatment lacks rational basis | Emergency public-health regulation is entitled to deference; restrictions are neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to pandemic control | Court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on equal protection claim and granted preliminary injunction as to plaintiffs’ weddings |
| Whether Jacobson pandemic-deference bars relief | Jacobson inapplicable because the 50-person limit is arbitrary and underinclusive given exemptions (restaurants, graduations, demonstrations) | Jacobson requires courts to defer to public-health judgments unless measures lack real relation to public health or are arbitrary/oppressive | Court applied Jacobson's framework but concluded the State’s differential treatment here was arbitrary and not sufficiently related to the State’s articulated interest |
| Whether plaintiffs’ Free Exercise / First Amendment claims succeed (neutrality/general applicability) | The restriction is underinclusive and discriminatorily applied to religious weddings versus similar secular activities | The rule is neutral and generally applicable to gatherings and justified by public-health concerns | Court did not primarily decide free-exercise merits but relied on equal protection finding to grant preliminary relief; noted exemptions undermined neutrality/general applicability arguments |
| Whether irreparable harm and public interest support injunction | Violation of constitutional rights (equal protection/First Amendment) entails irreparable harm; public interest favors protecting constitutional rights | Public-health harms from increased gatherings outweigh plaintiffs’ interests; irreparable harm not shown as speculative | Court presumed irreparable harm from constitutional violation and found the public interest and balance of equities favored injunction given enforcement conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (state police power in public-health emergencies reviewed for relation to public health and not arbitrary/oppressive)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions requires likelihood of success or serious questions plus balance of hardships)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection requires persons similarly situated be treated alike)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection theory articulated)
- Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (class-of-one requires high degree of similarity to comparator)
- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (injunction standards and exceptions when challenging government action)
- Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1996) (presumption of irreparable harm where plaintiff shows substantial likelihood of success on a constitutional claim)