League of Women Voters of the United States v. Kosinski
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-05238
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In League of Women Voters of the United States v. Kosinski, Judge Vyskocil vacated a stipulated consent order without deciding the underlying issues.
The plaintiffs and defendants’ private agreement was not endorsed as a court consent order. The court did not decide the underlying dispute.
What happened
League of Women Voters of the United States v. Kosinski involved the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ request that the court approve their private agreement instead of litigating a request for a preliminary injunction.
The court said the parties could make their agreement, and that it could be enforced under governing law. But the court had not reviewed the issues raised or potentially raised by the complaint or future motions.
Judge Vyskocil vacated the stipulated consent order dated September 17, 2020. The court did not decide the underlying dispute, and it stated that no motions were pending.
The detailed version
- League of Women Voters of the United States v. Kosinski · No. 1:20-cv-05238
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 18, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs were the League of Women Voters of the United States, the League of Women Voters of New York State, and Carmelina Palmer. The defendants were officials of the New York State Board of Elections, sued only in their official capacities.
The parties had submitted a stipulated consent order dated September 17, 2020. The court explained that no motions were pending and that the parties wanted the court to endorse their private agreement instead of litigating a preliminary injunction. A consent decree is a settlement that includes an injunction.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that the parties were free to agree to their stipulation and that the agreement would be enforceable under governing law, including as a contract. But the court had not been asked to analyze, and had not analyzed, the issues that the complaint or future motions might present and that the stipulation avoided. The court therefore said it could not blindly endorse the agreement. It also cited the concern that the rights of people who are not parties to a settlement might be affected.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the stipulated consent order be vacated. The order did not resolve the underlying legal issues or rule on a preliminary-injunction motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.