Slattery v. Hochul, 61 F.4th 278

New York enacted Labor Law §203-e (the "Boss Bill") in 2019: it forbids adverse employment actions and accessing employees' reproductive-health information because of "reproductive health decision making," creates a private right of action, and contains no express religious exemption.
Evergreen Association runs crisis pregnancy centers, opposes abortion, hires only applicants who oppose abortion and extramarital sex, and intends to continue and advertise those hiring practices.
Evergreen sued state officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of expressive association, free speech, free exercise, and due-process vagueness under the U.S. Constitution.
The district court dismissed all claims; Evergreen appealed to the Second Circuit, which reviews dismissal de novo.
The Second Circuit held Evergreen plausibly alleged that §203-e severely burdens its freedom of expressive association so strict scrutiny applies and reversed dismissal as to that claim; the court remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Evergreen's free speech, free exercise, and vagueness claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Expressive association	§203-e prevents Evergreen from excluding employees who engage in or approve abortions, undermining its anti‑abortion message and identity	The burden is incidental; statute protects privacy and prevents workplace discrimination and survives rational-basis review	Reversed dismissal: Evergreen plausibly alleged a severe burden; strict scrutiny applies; state has not shown least restrictive means at pleading stage
Free speech	Personnel decisions and the statute's no‑waiver rule regulate expressive conduct and are content‑based	Hiring/termination are not inherently expressive; statute regulates conduct, not speech	Affirmed dismissal: no independent First Amendment speech claim stated
Free exercise	§203-e targets religious employers and burdens their religious exercise	Statute is neutral and generally applicable; rational-basis review applies; ministerial exception not raised below	Affirmed dismissal: law is neutral and generally applicable; Smith‑type review applies
Vagueness	Key terms ("reproductive health decision making," "employee," "employer," "proposes to commit a violation") are indeterminate	Statutory definitions and legislative/contextual interpretation supply ordinary‑speaker notice; state proffered construction narrows scope	Affirmed dismissal: statute not unconstitutionally vague at pleading stage

Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (recognizes freedom of expressive association and the corollary right not to accept unwanted members)
Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (articulates test for expressive‑association claims and directs strict scrutiny when burdens are severe)
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (associational privacy and effectiveness in advocacy)
New Hope Family Servs. v. Poole, 966 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2020) (compelled hiring/membership can significantly burden expressive association)
Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v. Presiding Justices, 852 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2017) (strict scrutiny for severe burdens on associational rights)
Christian Legal Soc'y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) (forced inclusion undermines an organization’s message)
Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (free exercise claims: neutral, generally applicable laws need only rational basis)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (law not neutral if specifically directed at religious practice)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (context on religious‑accommodation concerns referenced in legislative debate)
Hosanna‑Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012) (ministerial exception operates as an affirmative defense)