Young v. James

Background

Huguette Nicole Young, appearing without a lawyer, sued Letitia James in her official capacity as New York’s Attorney General under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Young challenged New York Executive Order 202.17, which required people over age two who could medically tolerate a face covering to cover their nose and mouth in public when they could not maintain social distance.

Young alleged that wearing a mask interfered with her ability to speak audibly and clearly and to express herself, including by smiling at others. She stated that she was a long-haul truck driver between jobs, was seeking work opportunities in New York, and expected to visit New York. She alleged that she would have to turn down work, partnerships, or training because of the mask requirement. She sought a declaration that the order was unconstitutional and preliminary and permanent injunctions barring James from enforcing it against her.

The court had already allowed Young to proceed without paying filing fees. Young also filed a motion for a speedy hearing.

Legal standard

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party generally must show likely irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits, that the public interest favors the injunction, and that the balance of equities favors it. The court described a preliminary injunction as an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing by the person seeking it.

Court’s reasoning

The court relied on the principle that governments may protect the public during an epidemic unless the public-health measure has no real or substantial relation to that purpose or plainly invades protected rights. It also explained that the First Amendment permits reasonable, content-neutral rules about the time, place, and manner of speech when they are sufficiently tailored to an important government interest and leave open other ways to communicate.

The court held that Executive Order 202.17 did not prevent Young from speaking or expressing herself. It required her, in specified circumstances, to speak through a face covering. The court characterized the order as, at most, a content-neutral limit on where and how a person could speak or express themselves, not a plain and palpable invasion of free-speech rights. The court also stated that the order had a substantial relation to protecting the public from a highly contagious virus spread through the air.

Because Young had not shown a likelihood of success on her First Amendment claim, the court denied her request for a preliminary injunction.

Disposition

The court denied Young’s request for emergency injunctive relief. It also denied her motion for a speedy hearing as moot. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion did not state that the underlying action itself was dismissed.