Lewis v. Cuomo
Decision Date | 16 December 2021 |
Docket Number | 20-CV-6316 CJS |
Citation | 575 F.Supp.3d 386 |
Parties | Brandon LEWIS, The Firing Pin, LLC, Shannon Joy, James Ostrowski, Stephen Felano, Duane Whitmer, Seth Duclos, and Lisa Reeves, doing business as Big Red Barber Shop, Plaintiffs v. Andrew M. CUOMO, individually and as Governor of New York, Defendant |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
James Ostrowski, Michael Kuzma, Buffalo, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Heather Lynn McKay, New York State Attorney General's Office Department of Law, Rochester, NY, for Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo, Keith M. Corlett, Empire State Development Corporation.
Heather Lynn McKay, Gary M. Levine, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Rochester, NY, for Defendant Letitia James.
DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiffs filed this action to challenge various aspects of the Covid-19 "lockdown" imposed in the State of New York beginning in March 2020. Specifically, Plaintiffs maintain that the New York State Legislature's decision, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, to hastily amend New York State Executive Law § 29-a to grant greater emergency powers to former Governor Andrew Cuomo ("the Governor" or "Cuomo"), and Cuomo's subsequent issuance of various executive orders pursuant to that law, as well as his later delegation of powers to "unelected officials throughout the State," was unlawful and violated their federal constitutional rights. Apart from challenging the process by which Cuomo came to exercise such emergency powers, Plaintiffs also contend that Cuomo's executive orders imposed unconstitutional restrictions on their federal constitutional rights. Defendants, meanwhile, maintain that the actions taken by the legislature and Cuomo were perfectly lawful, and that the executive orders did not violate any federal constitutional provision. All defendants except Cuomo have been dismissed from the action. Now before the Court is a motion to dismiss by Cuomo. (ECF No. 25). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted.
Compl. ¶ 1. The Complaint purports to seek relief from this Court "pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, 42 U.S.C. § 1983."
The Complaint recites that "[o]n March 2, 2020, apparently in response to the Coronavirus [outbreak], the New York State Legislature passed a bill amending Section 29-a of the Executive Law to increase the Governor's powers to deal with a broad array of emergencies." The Complaint maintains that this amounted to an illegitimate delegation of legislative power to Cuomo by the Legislature. The Complaint states that Cuomo, armed with these additional powers, proceeded to issue a series of executive orders limiting the operation of, and access to, institutions and establishments where people would ordinarily congregate, such as churches, synagogues, schools, places of employment, movie theaters, shopping malls, restaurants, amusement parks, bowling alleys, gun shops, barber shops and hair salons. The Complaint refers to these various restrictions collectively as "the lockdown." The Complaint notes that Cuomo further issued executive orders requiring citizens to wear face coverings in various settings. Further, the Complaint indicates that on May 11, 2020, Cuomo purported to delegate "his emergency powers to regional committees and officials, [giving them] vast discretion to continue any of his emergency decrees," thereby "unlawfully delegat[ing] the very same legislative powers that were unlawfully delegated to him."
The Complaint maintains that this entire series of events was unlawful, and, in particular, that the delegations of legislative power, first by the legislature and then by Cuomo, were "all in violation of due process and the Guarantee Clause" of the U.S. Constitution. More specifically as to this point, the Complaint states:
Compl. at ¶¶ 169–175.
"The complaint seeks an injunction against all of the Governor's [Covid-19] executive orders and a declaration that the statute [ Executive Law § 29-a ] is unconstitutional." Pl. Mem. of Law (ECF No. 31) at p. 13. Plaintiff's challenge to § 29-a, however, is not limited to the context of the Covid-19 Pandemic. Rather, Plaintiffs object to the statute's grant of power to the Governor in all the enumerated emergency situations, and particularly those involving "terrorism" and "cyber events." More broadly, the Complaint contends that the Defendants, and primarily Cuomo, with the complicity of the Democrat-controlled New York Legislature, used the Covid-19 pandemic as an "excuse" to take rights from New York's citizens. See , Compl. at ¶ 2 (). Indeed, the Complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in a "bloodless coup against the constitution." Compl. at ¶ 9 ().
Apart from the alleged unconstitutionality of the delegation of legislative power, the Complaint contends that the various Executive Orders that Cuomo issued pursuant to that delegation (which closed businesses, forbade public gatherings and required face coverings) were themselves unconstitutional. In that regard, the Complaint contends that the Covid-19 outbreak did not provide a sufficient justification for the executive orders, since "[t]here is little if any solid data to show that locking down society yields a better result with respect to the virus, than merely taking precautionary measures" aimed at those most vulnerable to the illness, namely, persons who are elderly and in poor health. According to the Complaint, "[a]llowing younger and healthier people at low risk to resume normal activities and develop herd immunity while encouraging those at high risk to take precautionary measures is not only the best and most rational strategy but one that does not impinge on constitutional rights." The Complaint further asserts that "[t]here is exactly zero evidence that this lockdown is on the whole ... beneficial to society, to the economy or to our overall health and welfare." To the contrary, the Complaint alleges that the lockdown has had devastating effects on society. See , Complaint at ¶ 191 (). The Complaint asserts that the lockdown was especially unnecessary with regard to upstate New York, which Plaintiffs contend has become "a political colony of downstate."
Alternatively, the Complaint alleges that to the extent the lockdown became truly "necessary," it was only because Cuomo and the state legislature responded incompetently to the outbreak in the first place, thereby creating a situation in which they could justify violating Plaintiffs’ rights.
The Complaint maintains that Cuomo's "emergency decrees" had a constitutionally-injurious effect on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Omar Islamic Ctr. v. City of Meriden
...requests for declaratory relief based on facial challenges to laws that were superseded; collecting similar cases); Lewis v. Cuomo, 575 F.Supp.3d 386, 396 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) (“[a]n action seeking declaratory and/or injunctive relief against an allegedly unconstitutional statute becomes moot if......
-
Coughlin v. N.Y. State Unified Court Sys.
...Several district courts have declined to find a justiciable Guarantee Clause claim in the context of New York's COVID-19 enactments. In Lewis v. Cuomo, the court as non-justiciable a Guarantee Clause claim that the New York legislature's delegation of emergency powers to Governor Cuomo duri......
-
Sibley v. Watches
...and extreme cases, such as the establishment of a monarchy by a state in place of a republican form of government”); accord Lewis, 575 F.Supp.3d at 398 (dismissing Guarantee claims related to New York's COVID-19 “lockdown” because they raised “a non-justiciable political question, namely, w......