542 F.Supp.3d 207
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Jones, a pro se Oklahoma attorney admitted in New York, challenged New York Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order No. 205 (June 24, 2020), which directed a 14‑day quarantine for travelers from states exceeding specified COVID‑19 positivity metrics.
- The DOH published weekly lists identifying restricted states; violations were enforceable under NY Public Health Law with civil penalties.
- Jones alleged the Order burdened his ability to practice in New York after travel through a restricted state (Arkansas) and raised claims under the right to interstate travel, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Equal Protection, Contracts Clause, and vagueness; he sought damages and injunctive/declaratory relief.
- Subsequent executive orders and April 10, 2021 DOH guidance removed the quarantine requirement for asymptomatic travelers; the court nonetheless found the case not moot because restrictions could be reimposed.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice, finding the Order constitutional under Jacobson and, alternatively, under traditional scrutiny for the asserted claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / Continued jurisdiction | Jones argued his challenge remained live based on injuries from the Order as originally issued. | Defendants relied on superseding guidance/orders; suggested mootness concerns but primarily moved on merits. | Court held case not moot: pandemic uncertainty and executive authority to reimpose restrictions created a "constant threat" of recurrence. |
| Proper standard of review (Jacobson v. Massachusetts vs. ordinary tiers) | Jones urged traditional strict scrutiny for right‑to‑travel claims. | Defendants urged deference under Jacobson for emergency public‑health measures. | Court applied Jacobson (and alternatively traditional scrutiny) and found Jacobson controlling on stare‑decisis grounds, but analyzed both; result: Order survives either framework. |
| Right to interstate travel | Jones said the quarantine effectively penalized/interfered with interstate travel and wasn't least restrictive. | Defendants said travelers remained free to enter NY; quarantine targeted higher‑risk travelers and was rational/ narrowly tailored to public health. | Even assuming a burden, the Order survived strict scrutiny (compelling interest, tailored 14‑day quarantine) and rational basis review; right‑to‑travel claim failed. |
| Equal Protection | Jones claimed disparate treatment of residents from ‘‘dirty’’ vs. ‘‘clean’’ states. | Defendants argued travelers from non‑restricted states were not similarly situated due to objectively lower infection rates. | Court found Jones failed to plead similarly situated comparators or discriminatory intent; equal protection claim dismissed. |
| Privileges and Immunities (Art. IV) | Jones argued the Order discriminated against nonresidents practically (e.g., quarantine costs/logistics). | Defendants argued the Order applied equally to residents who traveled from restricted states and served non‑protectionist public‑health purposes. | Court held Jones failed to allege protectionist purpose or that the restriction burdened a core privilege; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (deference to reasonable public‑health measures under state police power)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (per curiam) (applied ordinary constitutional scrutiny to COVID restrictions on worship; questioned Jacobson’s breadth)
- Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) (modification/withdrawal of COVID restrictions during litigation does not automatically moot cases)
- Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, 983 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2020) (discussing limits of Jacobson in pandemic litigation)
- Page v. Cuomo, 478 F. Supp. 3d 355 (N.D.N.Y. 2020) (upholding Executive Order 205 under Jacobson)
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (three components of the constitutional right to travel)
- Selevan v. New York Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2009) (strict scrutiny for laws burdening fundamental rights)
- Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (elements for selective‑enforcement equal protection claim)
- Town of Southold v. Town of East Hampton, 477 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2007) (right to travel implicated only by laws that actually deter or penalize travel)