568 F.Supp.3d 270
E.D.N.Y2021Background
- Plaintiff (Jane Doe) sues New York State Commissioner of Health and Franklin Square Union Free School District on behalf of her minor daughter, Sarah, who has asthma and alleges she "cannot medically tolerate" masks; she seeks a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of New York’s school mask mandate.
- New York’s mask rule (10 NYCRR §2.60 and the Commissioner’s determination) adopts CDC K–12 guidance requiring universal indoor masking for persons over age two who can medically tolerate a face covering, with CDC‑recognized exceptions and an ADA/medical‑tolerance carve‑out.
- Plaintiff says the school denied a treating‑physician medical exemption and remote‑learning/accommodation requests (e.g., face shield, improved ventilation); she submitted studies she says undermine mask efficacy; defendants relied on CDC and peer‑reviewed school studies showing reduced in‑school transmission with masking.
- The Court applied modern tiers of scrutiny, concluded no fundamental right was implicated, applied rational‑basis review (and found the mandate also meets Jacobson’s standard), and denied the preliminary injunction on constitutional grounds.
- The Court rejected statutory and international‑law claims (FDCA §564 private right of action, Nuremberg analogies) as meritless.
- Because of contested factual assertions about Sarah’s condition and the district’s handling of exemptions/ADA obligations, the Court allowed two state‑law claims (medical‑tolerance exemption and ADA compliance) to proceed to a factual hearing and held injunctive relief on those claims in abeyance pending settlement/hearing scheduling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of NY school mask mandate (substantive due process) | Masking infringes fundamental bodily‑integrity/parental rights and is not justified | Mandate is rationally related to legitimate public‑health interest; based on CDC expertise | No fundamental right implicated; rational‑basis applies; mandate upheld on merits |
| Who decides medical exemption (treating physician vs. school/state) | Treating physician’s judgment should control exemption decisions for the child | State/school may assess exemptions balancing individual needs and community health | No constitutional right to have a treating physician’s decision unreviewably control exemption; regulation already includes medical‑tolerance carve‑out |
| Claim that masks are nonconsensual medical experimentation or preempted by federal emergency authorizations | Masks are experimental/invasive; FDCA §564 or Nuremberg principles bar mandate | Masks are public‑health measures, not experimental; §564 confers no private right; Nuremberg inapplicable | Rejected: masks are not unlawful experimentation; no private §564 cause; Nuremberg analogy irrational |
| Preliminary injunction on state law claims (medical tolerance exemption and ADA) | Serious, ongoing harm to child (physical and psychological) warrants injunction | Public interest and CDC guidance counsel against enjoining mandate; factual disputes exist | Constitutional injunction denied; court ordered factual hearing on state claims and held relief in abeyance pending settlement/hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding state public‑health measures under police power and articulating test for overturning such regulations)
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) (describing substantive‑due‑process "shocks the conscience" analysis)
- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) (framework for tiers of constitutional scrutiny)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational‑basis standard and limits on heightened scrutiny)
- Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (rational‑basis presumption of validity for legislation)
- In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2020) (applying Jacobson‑style deference to public‑health emergency measures)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (applying strict scrutiny where COVID restrictions targeted religious exercise)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (defining contours of fundamental right to refuse medical treatment)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizing parental presumption in child‑rearing decisions)