COVID 19 working group

AK
Amanda Karras
Wed, Nov 18, 2020 4:32 PM

Good morning -

On yesterday's call, I mentioned a few new cases related to public health orders and restrictions that have come out in the last couple of weeks that people may want to take a look at if they are planning on adopting new restrictions in their community.  These are by no means comprehensive, but I thought they were instructive:

  • Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, Nos. 20-3572, 20-3590, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 35354, at *8 (2d Cir. Nov. 9, 2020). This case denied an injunction sought by a religious institution claiming New York's in person gathering restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause because the restrictions treated secular and non-secular institutions the same.  (The dissent seemed to argue that as time goes on, public official should be afforded less deference).

  • Hund v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-1176 (JLS), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212698, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2020).  This is a case that granted a musician's injunction related to New York's "incidental-music rule," which allows licensed establishments to provide live music that is incidental to the dining experience but the state does not allow advertised, ticketed live music because the state claimed the latter posed a greater public health risk.  The court concluded that even under a more deferential standard based on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905), the rule was arbitrary and violated the First Amendment.

  • Snider v. Cain, Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00670-P, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197042, at *7-8 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2020).  This case had some deferential language in it for local officials, citing to the Fifth Circuit's April decision, in In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772, 778 (5th Cir. 2020), which said: "Under the pressure of great dangers, constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted as the safety of the general public may demand. That settled rule allows the state to restrict, for example, one's right to peaceably assemble, to publicly worship, to travel, and even to leave one's home."

Thanks,

Amanda

Amanda Kellar Karras
Deputy General Counsel /
Director of Legal Advocacy
P: (202) 466-5424 x7116
M: (857) 753-3311
[facebook icon]https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/[twitter icon]https://twitter.com/imlalegal[linkedin icon]https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./

[logo]https://imla.org/
51 Monroe St. Suite 404
Rockville, MD, 20850
www.imla.orghttp://www.imla.org/
Plan Ahead!
IMLA's 2021 Mid-Year Seminarhttps://imla.org/seminars/, April 23-26, 2021 in Washington, DC!
IMLA's 86th Annual Conferencehttps://imla.org/annual-conference/, Sept. 29-Oct. 3, 2021 in Minneapolis, MN!

Good morning - On yesterday's call, I mentioned a few new cases related to public health orders and restrictions that have come out in the last couple of weeks that people may want to take a look at if they are planning on adopting new restrictions in their community. These are by no means comprehensive, but I thought they were instructive: * Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, Nos. 20-3572, 20-3590, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 35354, at *8 (2d Cir. Nov. 9, 2020). This case denied an injunction sought by a religious institution claiming New York's in person gathering restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause because the restrictions treated secular and non-secular institutions the same. (The dissent seemed to argue that as time goes on, public official should be afforded less deference). * Hund v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-1176 (JLS), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212698, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2020). This is a case that granted a musician's injunction related to New York's "incidental-music rule," which allows licensed establishments to provide live music that is incidental to the dining experience but the state does not allow advertised, ticketed live music because the state claimed the latter posed a greater public health risk. The court concluded that even under a more deferential standard based on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905), the rule was arbitrary and violated the First Amendment. * Snider v. Cain, Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00670-P, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197042, at *7-8 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2020). This case had some deferential language in it for local officials, citing to the Fifth Circuit's April decision, in In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772, 778 (5th Cir. 2020), which said: "Under the pressure of great dangers, constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted as the safety of the general public may demand. That settled rule allows the state to restrict, for example, one's right to peaceably assemble, to publicly worship, to travel, and even to leave one's home." Thanks, Amanda Amanda Kellar Karras Deputy General Counsel / Director of Legal Advocacy P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 M: (857) 753-3311 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! IMLA's 2021 Mid-Year Seminar<https://imla.org/seminars/>, April 23-26, 2021 in Washington, DC! IMLA's 86th Annual Conference<https://imla.org/annual-conference/>, Sept. 29-Oct. 3, 2021 in Minneapolis, MN!