535 F.Supp.3d 282
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Plaintiff Sander Saba is a nonbinary New York resident who has a New York birth certificate and a Pennsylvania driver’s license listing gender marker “X.”
- New York DMV’s standard driver-license Application (Form MV-44) requires selection of either “Male” or “Female”; DMV’s legacy computer system needs a binary gender input to generate a motorist identification (MI) number used internally and shared with third parties.
- Because Saba is a New York resident, they must exchange their PA license for a NY license but claim the DMV policy prevents obtaining an NY license that accurately shows “X.”
- Saba sued under the First and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under the NYSHRL seeking declaratory relief, a permanent injunction, and damages.
- Defendants (Governor Cuomo and DMV Commissioner Shroeder in official capacities) moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing (1) the claims are moot because DMV plans to modify its system and has offered a manual process to issue Saba an “X” license, and (2) the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary relief.
- The Court held Defendants’ motion is denied as to mootness (voluntary cessation/system change did not eliminate a live controversy) but granted as to monetary damages (Eleventh Amendment bar); prospective declaratory and injunctive relief remains available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DMV’s announced system-modification project moots the challenge to the Application | The current Application still requires binary selection; a future system change does not cure present injury | System change underway will allow automated "X" option, eradicating need for relief | Court: Not moot; a future intention to change does not extinguish present controversy or preclude relief |
| Whether DMV’s post-suit offer to manually issue an “X” license to Saba moots the case (voluntary cessation) | Manual offer does not fully eradicate harms because DMV would still assign a binary gender in internal records accessible to third parties | The manual accommodation resolves Saba’s injury and removes need for litigation | Court: The manual issuance defeats the specific grievance in the complaint (Saba will get an “X” license), but voluntary cessation does not meet Defendants’ heavy burden to show no reasonable expectation of recurrence or that effects are completely eradicated; mootness not established |
| Whether DMV’s internal practice of assigning a binary gender to generate an MI and sharing that with third parties creates a separate, live injury | Saba asserts the internal binary designation and record dissemination would continue to misidentify them and cause harm | DMV contends the complaint challenges the Application and not internal record-keeping; the manual license addresses the complaint’s gravamen | Court: The internal-records claim (as argued in opposition) is different from the complaint’s core claim; the complaint’s primary injury is redressed for Saba but the Court rejects mootness because lingering effects and recurrence remain possible |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars relief (money and prospective relief) | Saba seeks damages and injunctive/declaratory relief under § 1983 and NYSHRL | Defendants argue Eleventh Amendment immunizes them from suit and damages | Court: Eleventh Amendment bars Saba’s claims for monetary damages; Ex parte Young permits prospective injunctive and declaratory relief because a future violation remains possible |
Key Cases Cited
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (U.S. 2013) (Article III case-or-controversy requirement/mootness)
- In re Zarnel, 619 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2010) (mootness doctrine and live controversy at all stages)
- Mhany Mgmt., Inc. v. County of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 2016) (defendant’s burden to prove mootness)
- Holland v. Goord, 758 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2014) (voluntary cessation and mootness analysis)
- American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 815 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2016) (voluntary cessation; when amendment yields a substantially different controversy)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (Eleventh Amendment exception allowing prospective relief against state officials)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (Eleventh Amendment bars money damages against a state)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2013) (voluntary cessation cannot moot a case unless recurrence is impossible)