101 F. Supp. 3d 283
W.D.N.Y.2015Background
- In 1997 New York enacted a ban (N.Y. Unconsol. Laws § 8905-a) criminalizing materially aiding or profiting from a “combative sport,” defined to exclude boxing, sparring, wrestling, and “martial arts” — the latter limited to events sanctioned by listed organizations; NYSAC may add/remove exempt organizations. The OAG prosecutes criminal violations; NYSAC cannot prosecute but may refuse licenses and refer matters to OAG.
- The Liquor Law (N.Y. Alco. Bev. Cont. Law § 106(6-c)(a)) forbids on‑premises liquor licensees from hosting unlawful combative-sport events; NYSLA can suspend/revoke licenses for violations.
- Plaintiffs (MMA fighters, promoters, Zuffa/ UFC, trainers, promoters) sued asserting equal protection, Commerce Clause, First Amendment, and facial and as‑applied vagueness challenges; the court previously dismissed the first three claims and facial vagueness claims but left certain as‑applied vagueness claims alive for three categories: (1) sanctioned professional MMA, (2) professional MMA on tribal land, and (3) amateur MMA.
- At summary judgment, Plaintiffs pursued only as‑applied vagueness claims; Defendants moved asserting lack of standing (no imminent injury from enforcement) and on the merits that statutes are not unconstitutionally vague as applied.
- During discovery most plaintiffs stipulated they would present no evidence on as‑applied claims; three non‑stipulating plaintiffs (Zuffa, Don Lilly, Shannon Miller) supplied testimony but the Court held they failed to show a concrete, imminent threat of prosecution (standing) for any of the three categories; similarly, no plaintiff showed an injury from the Liquor Law.
- Judgment: Plaintiffs’ summary judgment denied; Defendants’ summary judgment granted in full. The Court noted plaintiffs could bring a new suit based on post‑filing OAG statements but advised considering a state declaratory action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for as‑applied vagueness challenge to Ban re: sanctioned professional MMA | Plaintiffs (Zuffa, others) say officials’ statements and NYSAC refusals to assure legality caused them to refrain from events and create a credible threat of prosecution | Defendants say no prosecutorial warning or targeted threat existed at filing; NYSAC lacked prosecutorial power; post‑filing conduct irrelevant | No standing: plaintiffs failed to show imminent or substantial risk of prosecution at time of filing; summary judgment for defendants |
| Standing for as‑applied vagueness challenge to Ban re: professional MMA on tribal land | Plaintiffs say the Ban and OAG opinions could reach tribal events and thus chill promotion plans | Defendants say only an informal early opinion suggested possible enforcement on reservations, no targeted threats and no OAG enforcement actions at filing | No standing: plaintiffs lacked concrete plans and no imminent targeted enforcement shown |
| Standing for as‑applied vagueness challenge to Ban re: amateur MMA | Plaintiffs claim uncertainty about whether amateur events are covered chilled activity | Defendants point to OAG statements and actual practice showing OAG treated Ban as applying to professional events and not prosecuting amateur events; no imminent prosecution | No standing: plaintiffs failed to show concrete plans + OAG had not threatened to prosecute amateurs before filing (and later stated amateurs legal) |
| Standing to bring as‑applied vagueness challenge to Liquor Law | Plaintiffs assert the Liquor Law's prohibition on hosting outlawed combative sports injures licensees and promoters | Defendants say complaint lacks any allegation or evidence Liquor Law has been or would be applied to any plaintiff; no imminent enforcement shown | No standing: plaintiffs produced no evidence the Liquor Law had been or would be applied to them; summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (threatened injury must be certainly impending; substantial‑risk standard discussed)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (plaintiff need not expose itself to enforcement to challenge a threatened government action)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (pre‑enforcement challenges on credible threat/First Amendment context)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (pre‑enforcement challenge standards in constitutional contexts)
- Jones v. Schneiderman, 974 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (prior opinion of this court resolving other constitutional claims and preserving certain as‑applied vagueness claims)
- Hedges v. Obama, 724 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2013) (discussion of credible‑threat and imminence standards)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (vagueness doctrine; distinction between facial and as‑applied challenges)