Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled July 10, 2025

The Art and Antique Dealers League of America, Inc. v. Basil Seggos

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:18-cv-02504
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EnvironmentalCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In The Art and Antique Dealers League v. Seggos, Judge Schofield permanently barred enforcement of New York’s ivory-display restriction against the plaintiffs and their members.

Who this affects

The two named plaintiff organizations and their members are protected from enforcement of the specified ivory-display license restriction. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the officials and other persons covered by the injunction may not enforce that restriction against them, but the Department may impose other lawful licensing conditions.

What happened

The Art and Antique Dealers League of America and the National Art and Antique Dealers Association of America challenged a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation license condition called the “Display Restriction,” which prohibited displaying certain ivory and horn items for sale in New York. The Court of Appeals had reversed an earlier grant of summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Following that ruling, the district court permanently barred the Department and specified officials and associates from enforcing the Display Restriction against the plaintiffs and their members. The order allows the Department to impose other ivory-sale license conditions in the future if they comply with the Court of Appeals’ ruling and other applicable law. The plaintiffs may also file a motion for attorney’s fees within 30 days.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered the order on July 10, 2025. The caption names Basil Seggos as the defendant, while the operative injunction identifies Amanda Lefton in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
The Art and Antique Dealers League of America, Inc. v. Basil Seggos · No. 1:18-cv-02504
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
July 10, 2025

Background

The plaintiffs are The Art and Antique Dealers League of America, Inc. and The National Art and Antique Dealers Association of America, Inc. They challenged a condition on licenses issued under New York Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0535-a(2), titled “Ivory and Horn—Displaying items for sale in New York State—Prohibition.” The opinion calls this condition the “Display Restriction.”

The district court states that, on November 13, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. On June 5, 2025, the district court directed the parties to submit a proposed order consistent with the Court of Appeals’ ruling.

Ruling

The district court ordered that Amanda Lefton, identified as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the listed persons acting with her or the Department are permanently enjoined from enforcing the Display Restriction against the two plaintiffs and their members.

The order does not prohibit the Department from imposing other conditions on future licenses for the sale of ivory, provided those conditions comply with the referenced Court of Appeals opinion and other applicable law. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to file any motion for attorney’s fees within 30 days after entry of the order.

Effect of the Order

The order implements the Second Circuit’s ruling by permanently stopping enforcement of the specified Display Restriction against the plaintiffs and their members. It does not address whether other possible licensing conditions would be lawful. The caption identifies Basil Seggos as the defendant, but the operative injunction identifies Amanda Lefton; the opinion does not explain that difference.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.