Association of American Medical Colleges v. Carey, Civ. A. No. 79-CV-730.
| Decision Date | 22 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 79-CV-730. |
| Citation | 482 F. Supp. 1358 |
| Parties | ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES, Plaintiff, v. Hugh L. CAREY, Individually, and as Governor; Theodore M. Black, Individually, and as Chancellor, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Willard A. Genrich, Individually, and as Vice Chancellor, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Kenneth B. Clark, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Harold E. Newcomb, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Emlyn I. Griffith, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Mary Alice Kendall, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Jorge L. Batista, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Louis E. Yavner, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Laura Bradley Chodos, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Martin C. Barell, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Joseph R. Bongiorno, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Louise P. Matteoni, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; J. Edward Meyer, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Arlene B. Reed-Delaney, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; R. Carlos Carballada, Individually, and as Member, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York; Gordon M. Ambach, Individually, and as Commissioner of Education, University of the State of New York, and Robert Abrams, Individually and as Attorney General, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
DeGraff, Foy, Conway, Holt-Harris & Mealey, Albany, N. Y., Fulbright & Jaworski, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff; Carroll J. Mealey, Albany, N. Y., Carl W. Vogt, Joyce E. Reback, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Albany, N. Y., pro se and for all named defendants other than Bongiorno, Meyer, and Newcomb, individually & as members of the Board of Regents; Stanley Fishman, Maurice K. Peaslee, Asst. Attys. Gen., Albany, N. Y., of counsel.
In this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiff, Association of American Medical Colleges, challenges the legality and constitutionality of certain provisions of the New York Standardized Testing Act, Article 7-A of the New York Education Law, as they apply to its Medical College Admission Test ("MCAT") and to unpublished studies, evaluations and reports pertaining to the MCAT. The lawsuit is presently before the Court on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.1
Plaintiff is a non-profit educational association whose members comprise 125 United States Schools of Medicine, 418 teaching hospitals, 68 academic societies and over 1,700 individuals.
Defendant, Hugh L. Carey, is the Governor of the State of New York, and is being sued both individually and in his capacity as Governor.
Defendants, Black, Genrich, Clark, Newcomb, Griffith, Kendall, Batista, Yavner, Chodos, Barell, Bongiorno, Matteoni, Meyer, Reed-Delaney and Caraballada, are members of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York and are defendants in this action both individually and in their official capacity.2
Defendant, Gordon M. Ambach, is the Commissioner of Education for the State of New York and is named as a defendant both individually and in his official capacity.
named as a defendant individually and as Attorney General.
Jurisdiction is alleged pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and 1343(3). Declaratory relief is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
On July 13, 1979, Governor Carey signed into Law Article 7-A of the Education Law, popularly referred to as the "Truth in Testing" Law. (N.Y.Ed. Law §§ 340 et seq.) Effective January 1, 1980, the Law applies to "any test that is given at the expense of the test subject and designed for use in the process of selection for post-secondary or professional school admissions." N.Y.Ed.Law § 340(1). The MCAT given by plaintiff is specifically included under the Law. § 340(1).
In addition to provisions which set forth various notice requirements (§ 343) and requirements for disclosure of test results by test agencies (§ 344), the Law imposes certain obligations on test agencies with regard to disclosure of studies, background reports and statistical data pertaining to the tests (§ 341)3 and of the contents of the tests themselves (§ 342).4 It is these last two provisions which plaintiff finds unacceptable.
Plaintiff alleges the advancement of medical education and health care in the United States as its sole reason for existence. In furtherance of this purpose plaintiff has, for almost fifty years, sponsored a testing program for medical school applicants. This program includes the development and administration of the MCAT.5
In connection with its sponsorship of the MCAT, plaintiff also prepares or causes to be prepared, on an ongoing basis, confidential unpublished studies, evaluations and reports pertaining to the MCAT. These include studies of the performance of graduates of particular undergraduate schools and reports consisting of evaluations of test subject's performance on individual questions for use in developing new questions. Both of these types of studies are prepared on a confidential basis.
Detailed security procedures govern all phases of development of the MCAT, including test book assembly, printing and distribution. Beginning with the April 1978 MCAT, plaintiff has registered every test form with the Register of Copyright in conformity with the deposit procedures set forth at 37 C.F.R. § 202.20(c)(2)(vi).6
In 1979, the MCAT was administered four times, on consecutive Saturdays and Sundays in the Spring and Fall at approximately 450 test centers throughout the world, including 26 in the State of New York. The test was taken by approximately 48,000 individuals, 5,000 of whom took the test in New York State. Plaintiff has indicated that a similar schedule had been planned for 1980. Plaintiff has made clear that it does not intend to administer the MCAT in New York State in 1980 if forced to comply with Sections 341 and 342 of the Testing Act.7
In seeking to enjoin enforcement of Sections 341 and 342 of the "Truth in Testing" Law, plaintiff alleges that the Act violates the federal Copyright Act, and furthermore, that it is, in fact, preempted by the Copyright Act. Plaintiff also raises constitutional issues under both the United States and New York State Constitutions, alleging specifically a denial of due process and equal protection rights.
Claiming that it will suffer irreparable harm if forced to comply with the challenged provisions, plaintiff asks the Court to grant a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of Sections 341 and 342 pending a determination on the merits.
Opposing the motion, defendants raise threshold jurisdictional questions concerning applicability of the Eleventh Amendment as a bar to this action, ripeness and whether proper defendants have been named in the action. In addition, defendants allege laches on the part of plaintiff in commencing this action, which according to defendants precludes issuance of a preliminary injunction.8
Defendants, citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) and Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978), assert that the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution bars this action against the State officials named as defendants.9
The Eleventh Amendment provides that: "the Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or Citizens or subjects of any Foreign State."
The principle of sovereign immunity embodied in the Amendment has been construed to extend to suits by private persons against State officials as well, when the action seeks to "impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury . . .," (Edelman v. Jordan, supra, 415 U.S. at 663, 94 S.Ct. at 1356) and such actions have consistently been barred.
Defendants' argument fails to recognize, however, that there has traditionally been a distinction made between suits against State officials in their official capacity which could result in liability to the State treasury, and those seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief against the officials. In fact, the latter has been the traditional means of challenging the constitutionality of a State enactment.
In the landmark decision of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the Supreme Court recognized the distinction, holding that a suit for declaratory and prospective injunctive relief could be maintained by a private party against a State official responsible for enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional enactment.10
Plaintiff, in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, has not overstepped the bounds of Ex parte Young, supra, and that being the case, the Eleventh Amendment does not serve as a bar to the present action.
Defendants' claim that plaintiff has commenced this action prematurely is likewise without merit. Defendants' position, in opposing this motion, is that since none of the defendants has as yet threatened plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Springfield, Vt. v. McCarren
...conduct by government officials. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908); Association of American Medical Colleges v. Carey, 482 F.Supp. 1358, 1361-62 (N.D.N.Y.1980). Thus any suit seeking only equitable relief against state officials can be heard, provided the equita......
-
Warden v. Pataki
...N.Y. Const. art. 4, § 3. Although there is some authority to support plaintiffs' position, see, e.g., Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges v. Carey, 482 F.Supp. 1358, 1363 (N.D.N.Y.1980), the vast majority of courts to consider the issue have held — correctly, in my view — that a state official's dut......
-
Association of American Medical Colleges v. Carey
...enforcement of N.Y.Educ.Law §§ 341 and 342 as against the plaintiff until resolution of this action. Association of American Medical Colleges v. Carey, 482 F.Supp. 1358, 1364 (N.D.N.Y.1980). The Standardized Testing Act has subsequently been amended, incorporating additional disclosure requ......
-
Aron v. Becker
...at *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 30, 2014) (interior quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted); but see Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls. v. Carey, 482 F.Supp. 1358, 1363 (N.D.N.Y.1980) (holding that the Governor's constitutional duty to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed” is a sufficie......