The Bronx Defenders v. Office Of Court Administration

Background

The plaintiffs, six New York City public defender organizations, challenged the New York City Criminal Court’s plan to resume limited in-person appearances during the COVID-19 pandemic. They alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the plaintiffs, the plan required unnecessary in-person appearances and did not adequately accommodate attorneys and clients with medical vulnerabilities.

The Office of Court Administration and Lawrence K. Marks, sued in his official capacity as Chief Administrative Judge of the Unified Court System, described safety measures that included staggered cases, social distancing markers, masks, sanitation, plexiglass, employee testing, and temperature checks. The plan allowed up to ten criminal cases per day per borough and instructed judges to grant requested accommodations related to COVID-19 risks, including virtual appearances or adjournments. The parties disputed how much notice people received and whether accommodations were consistently provided.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed suit on July 14, 2020, and sought an emergency temporary restraining order to halt in-person appearances. The court denied that emergency motion but converted the request into a motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered the defendants to show why an injunction should not issue. After expedited briefing and a hearing, the court considered whether it had to abstain—that is, decline to decide the case because federal intervention would improperly interfere with state-court proceedings.

The opinion notes that the defendants also questioned the plaintiffs’ standing to assert claims on behalf of their clients. The court did not decide standing because it resolved the case on abstention grounds.

Analysis

The court applied the abstention principles from Younger v. Harris and O’Shea v. Littleton. It focused especially on whether the requested relief would create an ongoing federal review or audit of state criminal proceedings. The court explained that the requested injunction would require it to halt in-person appearances, dictate when and how state criminal courts could schedule proceedings, require a new policy with specified procedures and accommodations, and supervise that policy over time.

The court concluded that this relief would intrude substantially into the internal procedures of New York’s state criminal courts. It also found that restarting the state criminal court system and scheduling proceedings implicated significant state interests, particularly because the halt in in-person operations had disrupted court functions and contributed to a reported backlog of 39,000 cases citywide, including nearly 12,000 unindicted felonies.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that they were challenging only a general policy, that abstention would eliminate federal enforcement of disability rights in state courthouses, and that the requested relief would merely restore virtual proceedings temporarily. In the court’s view, the requested relief would require a new policy and continuing federal supervision, including possible case-by-case disputes over accommodations.

Disposition

The court expressly stated that it was not adjudicating the merits of the plaintiffs’ disability and constitutional claims. It abstained from adjudicating the action, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissed the case, and directed the Clerk to close the case.