Case updates for the week of April 20, 2024

Friday April 19th: The federal district court for the Southern District of New York denied a preliminary injunction seeking to halt enforcement of New York’s restriction on the sale of dietary aids and weight loss supplements to persons over the age of 18. In Council for Responsible Nutrition v. James, the plaintiffs, a consortium of dietary supplement companies, argued that the restriction infringed their First Amendment commercial Free Speech rights. However, the court held that the plaintiffs had not met the burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits because a categorical ban on sale of weight loss supplements to those under 18 fell squarely within the state’s traditional police powers to promote the public health and did not implicate First Amendment Free Speech protections.

Thursday April 25th: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in part and overturned in part a lower court’s dismissal of a challenge to a New York school district’s mask mandate for students during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Doe v. Franklin Square Union Free School District, the plaintiff child claimed that her asthma prevented her from wearing a mask at school. After the school district denied her medical exemption, plaintiff’s parent brought suit on her behalf alleging that the school violated both her Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights in denying the exemption, as well as her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The lower court held, and the Second Circuit affirmed, that the Due Process claim failed because mask mandates do not infringe a fundamental constitutional right. However, the Second Circuit overturned the lower court regarding the ADA and § 504 claims explaining that plaintiff was not required to exhaust her claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before seeking damages under the ADA.

Case updates for the week of April 20, 2024

Friday April 19th: The federal district court for the Southern District of New York denied a preliminary injunction seeking to halt enforcement of New York’s restriction on the sale of dietary aids and weight loss supplements to persons over the age of 18. In Council for Responsible Nutrition v. James, the plaintiffs, a consortium of dietary supplement companies, argued that the restriction infringed their First Amendment commercial Free Speech rights. However, the court held that the plaintiffs had not met the burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits because a categorical ban on sale of weight loss supplements to those under 18 fell squarely within the state’s traditional police powers to promote the public health and did not implicate First Amendment Free Speech protections.

Thursday April 25th: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in part and overturned in part a lower court’s dismissal of a challenge to a New York school district’s mask mandate for students during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Doe v. Franklin Square Union Free School District, the plaintiff child claimed that her asthma prevented her from wearing a mask at school. After the school district denied her medical exemption, plaintiff’s parent brought suit on her behalf alleging that the school violated both her Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights in denying the exemption, as well as her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The lower court held, and the Second Circuit affirmed, that the Due Process claim failed because mask mandates do not infringe a fundamental constitutional right. However, the Second Circuit overturned the lower court regarding the ADA and § 504 claims explaining that plaintiff was not required to exhaust her claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before seeking damages under the ADA.

Case updates for the week of April 15, 2024

Tuesday April 16th: The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a challenge to a prison’s masking mandate during the COVID-19 pandemic in DeGroot v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections. The plaintiff, a prisoner in a Wisconsin state prison in 2020, claimed that the prison’s mask mandate violated religious freedoms under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The RLUIPA requires that any prison policy that substantially burdens a prisoner’s sincere religious belief must be the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest. However, the lower court held, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, that the case was moot because the RLUIPA only allows for injunctive relief, and the mask mandate had been rescinded in 2022. Further, the plaintiff’s complaint did not fit without the exception for conduct the defendants were likely to resume because “the now-rescinded mandate … responded to a version of the pandemic that is no longer around.

Tuesday April 16th: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss two claims and stay one other in a California church’s challenge to the state’s COVID-19 era policies. In Calvary Chapel San Jose v. County of Santa Clara, the plaintiffs, a church in San Jose, California and its pastor, are challenging several public health orders issued by California and Santa Clara County on constitutional grounds. However, the lower court dismissed claims that requested injunctions and declaratory judgments against the County to allow the County’s enforcement action to proceed. The court stayed the Court’s claim for money damages until the state’s enforcement action against Calvary has finished. The lower court also dismissed Calvary’s First Amendment retaliation claim because the allegedly retaliatory conduct, informing the Church’s lender of the enforcement lawsuit, was part of the state’s enforcement action, and therefore had First Amendment protection under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Calvary’s appeal of the dismissal of the retaliation claim because there has not yet been a final decision in the case and appellate jurisdiction did not yet exist. 

Tuesday April 16th: The federal district court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed yet another challenge to the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees in Arzamendi v. Austin. The plaintiffs, civilian Department of Defense employees with sincere religious objections to vaccination, alleged that the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate caused them emotional and psychological harm because their requests for religious exemption to the vaccine mandate were not adjudicated quickly. However, the court dismissed the claims related to vaccination as moot because plaintiffs filed suit before their requests for exemption were denied. In the meantime, the vaccine mandate was rescinded. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs challenge to the masking and testing alternative to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate because the plaintiffs did not adequately plead religious objections to masking and testing, instead only focusing on vaccination.