Justin v. Tingling
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:22-cv-10370
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Daudi Justin v. Milton Adair Tingling, Judge Buchwald denied the dismissal motion without prejudice because a bill could repeal the challenged jury-service ban.
Daudi Justin and the Community Service Society of New York’s constitutional challenge to New York’s ban on jury service by convicted felons; Milton Adair Tingling may refile the dismissal motion if the repeal bill is not enacted and the ban remains in force.
What happened
Daudi Justin and the Community Service Society of New York sued Milton Adair Tingling, in his official capacity, over a New York law barring convicted felons from serving on juries. They argued that the law was unconstitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought a declaration and an injunction.
The court had previously ruled that the plaintiffs could not pursue their Sixth Amendment claim because they lacked standing, but could pursue their Fourteenth Amendment claim. Tingling then asked the court to dismiss that remaining claim for failing to state a valid claim. While that motion was pending, both houses of the New York Legislature passed a bill that would repeal the jury-service ban statewide, but the Governor had not yet signed it.
Because the bill could make the case moot if enacted, the court denied Tingling’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling if the bill was not enacted by the end of 2024 and the challenged law remained in force. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Justin v. Tingling · No. 1:22-cv-10370
- Naomi Buchwald
- Sept. 19, 2024
Background
Daudi Justin and the Community Service Society of New York brought a proposed class action against Milton Adair Tingling in his official capacity as County Clerk of New York County and Commissioner of Jurors. They challenged Section 510(3) of New York’s Judiciary Law, which disqualifies convicted felons from serving on juries. The complaint sought a declaration that the law was unconstitutional as applied in New York County and an injunction preventing its application there. The plaintiffs relied on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Earlier standing ruling and motion
Tingling first moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing, meaning they were not legally entitled to bring the claims. On January 23, 2024, the court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their Sixth Amendment claim but had standing to pursue their Fourteenth Amendment claim. The court allowed Tingling to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. That motion addressed the remaining Fourteenth Amendment claim.
Legislative development
After Tingling filed the motion, both houses of the New York Legislature passed the Jury of Our Peers Act. The bill would repeal Section 510(3) and remove the ban on jury service by convicted felons throughout New York. The Governor had not signed the bill as of the opinion’s date.
The court explained that if the bill became law, it would repeal the statute the plaintiffs sought to block. Because the plaintiffs did not seek monetary damages and there was no basis to conclude that Tingling would later reinstate the jury-service ban, enactment of the bill would make the case moot, meaning there would no longer be a live dispute for the court to decide.
Ruling
The court denied Tingling’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling it if the legislation was not enacted by the end of 2024 and the challenged statute remained in force. The court did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 30.
Disposition
The motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice. The opinion did not state that the case itself was dismissed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.