d/b/a Seaport House v. Cuomo

Background

The plaintiffs filed a class action challenging New York City COVID-19 restaurant restrictions issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo. The restrictions barred restaurants from serving customers indoors and barred outdoor service after 10 p.m. The plaintiffs were Hopkins Hawley LLC doing business as Seaport House, The Greater New York Merchants’ Alliance, and Costin Tarsoaga. The opinion describes them as a New York City restaurant, a nonprofit advocacy group representing restaurant owners across New York, and a restaurant worker.

The plaintiffs alleged that the restrictions violated the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the Dormant Commerce Clause. They sought emergency orders stopping the restrictions. The court previously denied those requests, finding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed, had not shown irreparable harm, and had not shown that the public interest favored an injunction.

By the time of the dismissal motion, the challenged Dining Policy had been replaced by less restrictive policies. Restaurants could operate at 75% indoor capacity and until midnight, and the Governor had announced that restrictions would end by the end of May 2021.

Mootness

The defendants argued that the case was moot because the challenged policy had been rescinded. The court rejected that argument. Relying on Supreme Court decisions concerning COVID-19 restrictions, the court held that rescinding a restriction does not automatically end a case when the plaintiffs remain under a “constant threat” that the restriction will be reinstated.

The court found that the Governor retained authority to reintroduce COVID-19 restrictions in response to another surge in cases. Because the future course of the pandemic remained uncertain, the court held that the plaintiffs remained under a constant threat of facing the Dining Policy again. The case therefore was not moot.

Constitutional Claims

The court incorporated its earlier reasoning rejecting the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. It held that the Dining Policy satisfied the deferential standard from Jacobson v. Massachusetts, under which a public-health measure may be invalidated if it has no real or substantial relationship to public health or is plainly and palpably an invasion of rights.

The court concluded that the Dining Policy was related to the public-health goal of reducing COVID-19 transmission in higher-risk restaurant settings. It also held that the claims would fail under traditional constitutional review even if Jacobson did not apply. Because the policy did not implicate a fundamental constitutional right, the court applied rational-basis review and found that the restrictions rationally advanced the legitimate government purpose of slowing the spread of COVID-19.

State-Law Claims

The remaining claims arose under New York law. The plaintiffs alleged that the Dining Policy unlawfully delegated state legislative authority to the executive branch and that the Governor violated New York Executive Law § 28.

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over those claims under the Pennhurst doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents federal courts from ordering state officials to comply with state law, including when state-law claims enter federal court through supplemental jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiffs’ state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.