U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter Jr. of the Southern District of New York on Friday denied the temporary restraining order requested by a group of New York City public defender organizations who say the planned expansion of in-person state court proceedings discriminates against persons with disabilities.

The Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn Defender Services, the Bronx Defenders, New York County Defender Services, Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem and Queens Defenders filed suit against the Office of Court Administration and Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks Tuesday, arguing that the return to courthouses presents health risks for clients and staff vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19.

In a two-page order, Carter scheduled a July 21 telephone hearing to discuss whether he should grant a preliminary injunction.

Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, managing director of the Bronx Defenders' Impact Litigation Practice, said the group appreciates the quick timeline.

"By converting our request for temporary relief into a swift hearing on a more permanent injunction, the order recognizes that the criminal court created an urgent problem when it suddenly decided to haul people in for needless appearances at great risk to the health and well being of the public," she said. "We're glad to get before the judge in just a few days, and we're optimistic that we'll win an injunction halting the criminal courts' discriminatory policy and requiring any court reopening plan to protect the rights and safety of New York City residents."

The public defenders have said they were surprised by Marks' July 7 announcement that some in-person proceedings would resume in the city as the court system entered Phase Three of its reopening plan.

The court system has been widely praised for its technological adaptation amid the coronavirus pandemic. Thousands of virtual court proceedings have been held since March, and the defenders noted that Section 30.30, the state statute setting out speedy trial timelines, remains suspended by executive order.

"As long as 30.30 continues to be suspended, any rush in criminal court proceedings is somewhat hollow, from the perspective of the defendant's due process rights. … The effect of the In-person Order is to present opportunities to revoke bail and/or obtain guilty pleas without the corresponding right of the defendant to demand a speedy trial, and to increase the chances that defendants will feel pressure to accept a plea in order to avoid remaining in jail indefinitely while their case languishes in a criminal system that is not prepared to offer them due process," the defenders wrote in Tuesday's complaint.

A spokesman for the state court system declined to comment Friday.

READ MORE: