735 F.Supp.3d 421
S.D.N.Y.2024Background
- New York Election Law § 17-140 (the "Line Warming Ban") criminalizes provision of food, drink, or other refreshments to voters at or in connection with elections during voting hours, with limited exceptions.
- The Brooklyn Branch of the NAACP challenged the law, arguing it barred their nonpartisan support efforts (such as offering water/snacks to voters waiting in long lines), thereby infringing expressive conduct under the First Amendment.
- Defendants include members of New York’s State and City Boards of Elections, argued for lack of plaintiff’s standing and the law’s constitutionality.
- After denial of motions to dismiss and discovery, the court held a one-day bench trial and received extensive briefing and evidence from both sides.
- The court declared the law unconstitutional, granting a permanent injunction against its enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the statute | Suffered chill due to credible threat of enforcement; would conduct line warming but for the statute | No credible threat; no history of enforcement; plans too speculative | Plaintiff has standing—credible threat and concrete intent shown |
| Expressive conduct protected by 1st Amend. | Line warming is expressive conduct encouraging voting | Not expressive conduct, merely supportive action | Line warming is expressive conduct, 1st Amendment applies |
| Standard and tailoring of restriction | Ban is not narrowly tailored; criminalizes too much speech | Ban necessary to prevent voter influence/intimidation | Ban is content-based, not narrowly tailored; fails strict/intermediate scrutiny |
| Overbreadth/Vagueness | Ban is facially overbroad and vague, chilling protected activity | Ban addresses necessary concerns; scope clear | Statute is overbroad and vague; violates 1st/14th Amendments |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (conduct is protected by the First Amendment if it is sufficiently imbued with communication)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (states have compelling interests in preventing voter intimidation, but restrictions must be narrowly tailored)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (laws that are content-based on their face are subject to strict scrutiny)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (statutes burdening First Amendment activity must use the least restrictive means to achieve the stated interest)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (overbreadth doctrine permits facial invalidation when impermissible applications are substantial)