Quirk v. DiFiore

Background

Dennis W. Quirk, individually and on behalf of the New York State Court Officers Association, moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. He sought to prevent enforcement of COVID-19 screening procedures connected to the reopening of New York’s state courts. Quirk is identified in the opinion as a court officer and president of the union, which represents some 1,500 court officers. Janet DiFiore is identified as New York State’s chief judge, and the New York State Office of Court Administration is identified as the branch of the state court system responsible for enforcing court rules and regulations.

The screening procedures required courthouse visitors to undergo temperature screening and questioning when they entered. Court officers would use an infrared thermometer without physical contact. Visitors with temperatures of at least 100 degrees Fahrenheit, or whose answers suggested possible infection, would be instructed to leave the courthouse.

Quirk argued that court officers were not trained to medically assess people for COVID-19, that defendants were not providing proper protective equipment, and that the procedures did not adequately protect plaintiffs and others in courthouses. The defendants argued that the federal court should not interfere with state-court procedures, that Quirk’s claims lacked merit, and that the screening procedures served the public interest.

Legal standard

The court stated that the standards for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are the same in the Second Circuit. Generally, the person seeking either form of emergency relief must show likely irreparable harm without the order and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring that person. Because Quirk sought to block government action taken in the public interest under a regulatory scheme, the court applied the more demanding requirement that he show a likelihood of success on the merits.

Abstention and analysis

The court first considered abstention, a doctrine under which a federal court declines to exercise jurisdiction in certain circumstances to avoid improper interference with state proceedings or state functions. The court relied on the principle from O’Shea v. Littleton that federal courts should not issue injunctions requiring continuing supervision of state-court operations. The court explained that whether this doctrine applies depends on the requested relief’s level of intrusion into the state courts and the strength of the state interest involved.

The court found the requested injunction substantially intrusive. Preventing enforcement of the screening order could, in practice, halt the reopening of New York’s state courts. The court stated that it could not dictate whether, when, or how state courts reopen. It also found that requiring the proposed safety measures—including protective equipment, facility sterilization, barriers, capacity limits, daily case limits, and face coverings—would require federal supervision and oversight at courts across the state.

The court also found that New York had strong interests in responding flexibly to the COVID-19 pandemic and restarting its court system. Because the requested relief was intrusive and the state interests were strong, the court held that abstention under O’Shea was proper. The court noted that abstention was also supported by the availability of other avenues of relief and by the state courts’ obligation to follow federal law.

The court did not address the defendants’ separate arguments for abstention under Younger v. Harris or Burford v. Sun Oil Co. because it found abstention under O’Shea sufficient. It also expressly stated that, because it was abstaining, it did not need to evaluate the parties’ arguments on the merits.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 16.