Soos v. Cuomo
Decision Date | 26 June 2020 |
Docket Number | 1:20-cv-651 (GLS/DJS) |
Citation | 470 F.Supp.3d 268 |
Parties | Rev. Steven SOOS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Andrew M. CUOMO et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: OF COUNSEL: CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA, ESQ., 148-29 Cross Island Parkway, Whitestone, NY 11357, OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL McHALE, ESQ., 10506 Burt Circle, Ste 110, Omaha, NE 68114.
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Andrew M. Cuomo & Letitia James, HON. LETITIA JAMES, OF COUNSEL: ADRIENNE J. KERWIN, Assistant Attorney General, New York State Attorney General, The Capitol, Albany, NY 12224, Bill de Blasio, HON. JAMES E. JOHNSON, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, OF COUNSEL: MELANIE SADOK, ELLEN PARODI, HILARY M. MELTZER, Assistants Corporation Counsel, New York City Law Department, 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007.
FOR THE PROSPECTIVE AMICUS CURIAE: Ahuva Kleinman, OF COUNSEL: RONALD D. COLEMAN, ESQ., Mandelbaum Salsburg PC, 3 Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ 07068.
(Dkt. No. 32 at 10.) For the reasons explained and to the extent described below, the application for a preliminary injunction is granted.
For the past several months, the United States, and, indeed, the entire world, has been suffering from a global pandemic brought about by COVID-19. The State of New York, and particularly the New York City metropolitan area, have been described as the "epicenter" of the pandemic. See New York Coronavirus Map and Case Count, N.Y. Times (last visited June 26, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronavirus-cases.html. To date, there have been 395,168 cases, and 31,029 deaths because of COVID-19 in the State of New York. See id.
Beginning in March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic besieging New York, Governor Cuomo issued a series of executive orders, placing restrictions on New Yorkers:
On June 17, 2020, Mayor de Blasio issued an "Emergency Executive Order" incorporating Governor Cuomo's executive orders, and "direct[ing] the Fire Department of the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, the Department of Buildings, the Sheriff, and other agencies as needed to immediately enforce the [orders]." (Dkt. No. 32, Attach. 3 at 1-2.)
A document entitled "Guidance for Determining Whether a Business Enterprise is Subject to a Workforce Reduction Under Recent Executive Orders," (hereinafter, the "Guidance Document"), was published and simultaneously updated by the State of New York with the issuance of the executive orders described above. (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 1 at 94-125, 128-38.)
From March 20 through March 24, 2020 the Guidance Document provided that "worship services" are included among the enumerated businesses that "must remain closed and are not eligible for designation as an essential business for purposes of this guidance." (Id. at 98.)
From March 25 through April 7, 2020 the Guidance Document provided that although "[h]ouses of worship are not ordered closed[,] ... it is strongly recommended not to hold congregate services," and reiterated that "worship services ... are not eligible for designation as an essential business for purposes of this guidance." (Id. at 105.) From April 8 through April 9, 2020 "worship services" continued to be listed as among the businesses that "must remain closed and are not eligible for designation as an essential business for purposes of this guidance." (Id. at 113.)
From April 10 through May 20, 2020 the Guidance Document provided:
(Id. at 123.)
From May 21 through June 5, 2020, the Guidance Document permitted a gathering of ten or fewer people for a religious service or ceremony, provided that certain social distancing and health protocols were adhered to, and permitted "any drive-in or remote religious service may continue in excess of the ten person limit so long as there is no in-person contact between...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo
...of Flagstaff , No. 20-cv-8081, 2020 WL 2308479 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2020) (upholding stay-at-home order).8 See Soos v. Cuomo , 20-cv-651, 470 F. Supp. 3d 268 (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020) ; Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser , 20-cv-2710, 2020 WL 5995126 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2020). In Soos , Judge Sha......
-
Ill. Republican Party v. Pritzker
...is derivative of their First Amendment claim, and the parties agree that the claims rise and fall together.8 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Soos v. Cuomo is not persuasive. Soos v. Cuomo , No. 20-00651-GLS-DJS, 470 F.Supp.3d 268, (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020). Soos concluded that plaintiffs were likely......
-
Leb. Valley Auto Racing Corp. v. Cuomo
...Pls.’ Mot. at 4.In asking for relief, Plaintiffs rely exclusively on the decision in Soos v. Cuomo, No. 20-CV-651, 470 F.Supp.3d 268, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111808 (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020).3 There, the court held that a group of plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on......
-
Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser
...and participating in protests "sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment." Soos v. Cuomo , 470 F. Supp.3d 268, 283 (N.D.N.Y. 2020). The court noted that the officials—Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio—could have "been silent" or "could have just as eas......
-
THE "ESSENTIAL" FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.
...2020 WL 6384683, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2020); Elkhorn Baptist Church v. Brown, 466 P.3d 30, 34-35 (Or. 2020). (210.) Soos v. Cuomo, 470 F. Supp. 3d 268,279 (N.D.N.Y. 2020) ("To determine whether the aforementioned broad limits have been exceeded, which Newsom did not address, the court t......
-
JACOBSON 2.0: POLICE POWER IN THE TIME OF COVID-19.
...A.2d 37, 42-43 (Pa.1980). We classify the district court's decision in Soos v. Cuomo as a Jacobson supersession case. Soos v. Cuomo, 470 F. Supp. 3d 268, 278-79 (N.D.N.Y. 2020). Although the district court characterizes Chief Justice Roberts's quotations from Jacobson in South Bay as an ins......