New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole
966 F.3d 145
2d Cir.2020Background
- New Hope Family Services is a privately funded Christian adoption ministry in Syracuse, NY, authorized for decades to provide adoption services but receives no government funding. It refuses to recommend placements with unmarried or same-sex couples on religious grounds and refers such applicants to other agencies.
- OCFS promulgated 18 NYCRR § 421.3(d) in 2013, forbidding discrimination by authorized adoption agencies on several bases including sexual orientation and marital status; OCFS told New Hope in 2018 that New Hope’s policy violated that regulation and that it must either change its policy or close its adoption operations.
- New Hope sued OCFS under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting Free Exercise, Free Speech, and Equal Protection claims and sought a preliminary injunction to continue handling pending adoptions.
- The district court dismissed New Hope’s Free Exercise and Free Speech claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied the preliminary-injunction motion as moot.
- The Second Circuit reversed in part: it held (on the pleadings) that New Hope stated plausible Free Exercise and Free Speech (compelled-speech and expressive-association) claims and vacated the denial of injunctive relief, remanding for further proceedings and consideration of a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Exercise: whether OCFS’s enforcement of §421.3(d) is neutral and generally applicable | OCFS’s enforcement targets New Hope’s religiously motivated refusal to place with unmarried/same-sex couples; statutory history (Dom. Rel. Law §110) and prior OCFS practice (referral/recusal) show accommodation was expected; OCFS’s 2018 "comply-or-close" order reflects hostility | §421.3(d) is a neutral, generally applicable anti‑discrimination regulation; OCFS acted to enforce uniform standards to protect children and prevent discrimination | Reversed dismissal: pleadings plausibly raise suspicion of religious hostility and nonneutral enforcement; claim survives pleading stage and discovery warranted |
| Compelled speech: whether requiring approval/placement compels New Hope to speak views it rejects | Approving a placement and preparing recommendations/profiles are speech acts; compelling approval of unmarried/same-sex couples forces New Hope to communicate a message it disavows (that such placements are in a child’s best interests) | Any speech is government speech (New Hope serves as a state-authorized agency) or OCFS does not actually compel New Hope’s private religious expression within or outside its services | Reversed dismissal: government-speech and no-compulsion arguments fail at pleadings; New Hope plausibly alleges compelled speech and merits discovery |
| Expressive association: whether enforcement impairs New Hope’s ability to advocate and associate | Enforcement would restrict New Hope’s internal advocacy, require discipline of staff who express agency beliefs, and make association unattractive to like-minded staff/volunteers | Any impairment is slight; New Hope can still state its beliefs outside the provision of adoption services; it is not a membership organization | Reversed dismissal: expressive-association claim is plausibly pleaded; extent of impairment requires factual development |
| Preliminary injunction / mootness: whether New Hope’s PI motion was mooted by dismissal | PI was mooted only by dismissal; because Free Exercise and Free Speech claims survive, denial as moot was error | District court properly denied PI once claims were dismissed | Vacated denial as moot; remanded for district court to reconsider PI in light of this opinion; limited appellate injunction remains in effect pending remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (religious-practice rules: neutral, generally applicable laws do not trigger strict scrutiny)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (courts must examine text, history, and effect to detect covert hostility to religion)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (evidence of government religious hostility can invalidate enforcement)
- Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (government‑speech doctrine limited; private speech is not converted to government speech merely by approval)
- Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550 (2005) (example of government-created promotional speech where the government controlled the message)
- Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200 (2015) (government‑speech factors for specialty license plates)
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 922 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2019) (distinguished: involved a government contract and funding; court here emphasized New Hope receives no state funding)