A group of New York City public defender organizations are opposing a federal judge's ruling Tuesday to allow state courts to reopen for in-person proceedings, saying the decision put their clients at "enormous risk" during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. of the Southern District of New York, denied a preliminary injunction to halt the courts' reopening until the Office of Court Administration implemented a new plan that made accommodations for medically at-risk staff and defendants, including video and telephonic hearings.

Carter, however, said the request amounted to an impermissible and "ongoing federal audit of state criminal proceedings" that would require "significant intrusion" into the courts' functions.

"This court does not, and indeed cannot, dictate if, when, and how state criminal courts reopen or schedule in-person appearances. To do so would violate fundamental principles of comity and federalism, and would result in federal supervision of state procedures and proceedings," Carter wrote in a 16-page opinion.

"Without adjudicating the merits of plaintiffs' claims, the court concludes that pursuant to Supreme Court and Second Circuit case law, it must abstain from deciding this action," he said.

The public defender groups, which included Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn Defender Services, the Bronx Defenders, New York County Defender Services, Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem and Queens Defenders, said in a statement that the decision would particularly impact low-income clients of color and people with disabilities. 

"The decision by  the Southern District of New York to allow this unlawful plan to continue violates our clients' rights and exposes the public to unnecessary risk," the statement said. "We will explore the options available to prevent further harm."

"We are disappointed that the Southern District of New York allowed OCA to continue down this reckless road," the groups said.

A spokesman did not respond to inquiries Wednesday on possible plans to appeal the ruling or to seek a resolution outside of the litigation.

The organizations had said they were surprised by Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks' July 9 announcement that some in-person proceedings would resume in the city as the court system entered Phase Three of its reopening plan. The lawsuit, filed July 14 in Manhattan federal court, alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The OCA and Marks said the plan was necessary to jump-start court cases that were abruptly paused by the pandemic in mid-March. According to the courts, the disruption caused a backlog of 39,000 cases and 12,000 unindicted felonies, a number that had increased 42% in just four and a half months.

In his ruling, Carter said an order halting the courts' reopening would require an order banning state court judges from scheduling in-person appearances, as well as ongoing supervision of a new policy, which would "squarely" impact state criminal proceedings.

"This relief would then need to be supervised and enforced by this court. This degree of intrusion constitutes an impermissible, 'ongoing federal audit of state criminal proceedings,'" he said.

An OCA spokesman said Thursday that the office was "pleased with Judge Carter's decision allowing us to continue our deliberate, measured and careful resumption of in-person appearances."

"To date, we have had more than 800 in-person appearances in New York City Criminal Court alone, furthering our goal of the continued resumption of operations reflecting a criminal justice system that is safe, secure and engenders confidence for all users," he said.

READ MORE: