NY State Judge Denies Temporary Restraining Order Against NY Vaccines Law
Albany County Supreme Court Justice Michael Mackey said in the decision that, given case precedent on state vaccine laws, the lawsuit filed earlier this week may be unlikely to succeed in striking down the law.
July 12, 2019 at 03:10 PM
4 minute read
Attorneys suing the state over a new law that prohibits parents from seeking religious exemptions to vaccines for their children to attend school in New York will pursue a preliminary injunction against the statute after they were denied a temporary restraining order Friday.
Albany County Supreme Court Justice Michael Mackey said in the decision that, given case precedent on state vaccine laws, the lawsuit filed earlier this week may be unlikely to succeed in striking down the law.
“The contours or claimed inapplicability of this precedent may be argued as this action proceeds, but long standing decisional law portends insufficient likelihood of success on the merits presently,” Mackey wrote.
Attorneys Michael Sussman, from Orange County, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are representing more than four dozen families in the lawsuit against the statute. Those families said they were previously granted religious exemptions to vaccines and have argued that the new law violates their First Amendment rights.
They'll now move for a preliminary injunction against the law, which Sussman said will give them another opportunity to make their case against the statute. He acknowledged that the burden on plaintiffs is especially high when seeking a temporary restraining order.
“This is not the decision I had hoped for, but I recognize that getting a TRO against state legislation is very difficult,” Sussman said. “I hope that further development of all the issues will cause this or another judge to preliminarily restrain the operation of this statute and I will be working on making that happen.”
State Sen. Brad Hoylman, a Democrat from Manhattan who sponsored the bill this year, said in a statement that he was confident the law would ultimately be upheld as constitutional during further court proceedings.
“I'm pleased that this important law will continue to be implemented and enforced across our State, and remain confident that the law will ultimately be upheld as constitutional, consistent with over a century of federal and state jurisprudence,” Hoylman said. “New Yorkers are safer as a result.”
Hoylman, along with attorneys for Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have previously said they were confident the law would survive judicial review, based on prior legal decisions surrounding vaccine laws.
Mackey set a briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction motion with his decision, which prescribes that attorneys from both sides will file papers over the next two and a half weeks.
Sussman and Kennedy argued in the lawsuit filed Wednesday that the law was both unnecessary and violated the religious freedoms of the plaintiffs. They claimed that neither state nor local health officials followed standards already in place that may have helped contain a measles outbreak over the past year in Rockland County and areas of New York City.
It started with a handful of cases in Rockland County last September, but had grown into hundreds in the months that followed. State law, according to the complaint, allows state and local health officials to quarantine individuals with a contagious disease and clean areas where they might have been. That didn't happen in this case, the suit claimed.
They also argued that the law puts some parents in a difficult situation. They can either vaccinate their children against their beliefs, or choose to home-school them. The latter option isn't a possibility for everyone, and in some cases would be denying children the option to attend a religious school, the suit argued.
The law eliminates nonmedical exemptions for vaccines for children attending school or any kind of day care in New York, regardless of whether that institution is public, private or parochial. The law took effect in June after it was signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bolstering Southern California Presence, Sidley Austin Settles Into Revitalized Downtown LA Office
- 2Judge Orders Prosecution to Destroy Copies of Notes Found in Sean Combs' Prison Cell
- 3BIT Mining Bribery Scandal Highlights Trump-Biden Enforcement Gap
- 4AI Startup Founder Defrauded Investors of Millions, US Prosecutors Say
- 5Cyberattacks Slowing Down M&A Deals, Firm Report Finds
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250