512 F.Supp.3d 379
E.D.N.Y2021Background
- In Sept. 2020 New York Executive Order 205.1 (modifying EO 205) required travelers arriving from CDC Level 2 or 3 countries (and certain out-of-state travelers) to complete a New York State Traveler Health Form reporting recent travel, test status, and symptoms; completion under penalty of perjury.
- State enforcement: airport teams request proof of completion; failure to complete can trigger up to $10,000 fine and quarantine hearings; data used for contact tracing (state says data confidential).
- Plaintiff Yoel Weisshaus landed at JFK after international travel, was asked to complete the form, alleges he was prevented from leaving until he complied, then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and a preliminary injunction against the form requirement.
- Weisshaus asserted Supremacy Clause, Privileges or Immunities/right to interstate travel, freedom of international travel, informational privacy, and substantive due process claims.
- The court denied the preliminary injunction because plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits, and the public interest did not favor enjoining the public-health measure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supremacy Clause / federal preemption (CBP screening) | EO 205.1 intrudes on federal field of entry/screening (6 U.S.C. §211) and adds extra screening beyond CBP | State says statute does not confer individual exclusive screening rights; EO is a state public-health measure | Denied relief: plaintiff cannot show irreparable harm or that Supremacy Clause alone creates private rights triggering injunction |
| Right to interstate travel (Privileges/Immunities) | Form requirement interferes with right to enter/leave states and is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment | EO does not deter travel, does not target interstate travel, and applies equally; at most rational-basis review | Claim fails: not a burden on interstate travel; rationally related to public health; no likelihood of success |
| Freedom of international travel / right to reenter US | State screening/requirement prevents reentry and infringes international travel freedom | No constitutional right to unfettered reentry screened by state; any regulation judged under due process and is minimal | Denied: no viable constitutional right to international travel that is infringed; speculative harm of being barred unsupported |
| Informational privacy (medical / travel data) | Form coerces disclosure of sensitive medical and travel information | Travelers have diminished privacy at borders/airports; much info voluntarily provided to airlines/CBP; state confidentiality protects use | Denied: no reasonable expectation of privacy for the disclosed info; unlikely to succeed |
| Substantive due process / detention and fabricated evidence | Plaintiff alleges unlawful detention at airport and that form is used to fabricate evidence | More specific constitutional standards (Fourth Amendment) apply; detention claim is speculative and isolated; no evidence of fabrication | Denied: conduct does not "shock the conscience"; speculative detention not shown; Jacobson-style public-health deference applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (state power to enact public-health measures during epidemics)
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (three components of right to travel)
- Town of Southold v. Town of East Hampton, 477 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2007) (test for laws implicating interstate travel)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (fundamental nature of right to travel)
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, 575 U.S. 320 (2015) (Supremacy Clause is a structural rule, not a source of individual rights)
- Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 1996) (constitutional violations and irreparable harm presumption)
- United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004) (diminished expectation of privacy at the border)
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (right to avoid disclosure of personal matters as privacy concern)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (no privacy in information voluntarily given to third parties)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) ("shocks the conscience" standard for substantive due process)
- Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (trade-secret context on irreparable harm principles)
- United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2018) (airport security context and privacy expectations)
- Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103 (1989) (Supremacy Clause interpretation)