Clark v. City of New York

Background

Two Muslim women, Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz, and Turning Point for Women and Families sued the City of New York over a former New York City Police Department policy requiring arrested people to remove religious head coverings for booking photographs. Clark and Aziz alleged that officers required them to remove their hijabs despite their religious beliefs. The complaint alleged that photographs showing them without their hijabs were kept in law-enforcement databases and could be viewed by men outside their immediate families.

The plaintiffs brought claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the New York Constitution. Their requests for injunctive and declaratory relief had been settled before this opinion, but their claims for monetary damages remained. The City moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and had not stated claims for relief.

Turning Point’s standing

The court held that Turning Point had organizational standing. Turning Point alleged that it diverted resources from its usual direct services and advocacy to counsel members affected by the policy, review their complaints, and develop community programming. The court concluded that these alleged effects were a sufficiently concrete injury and denied the City’s motion to dismiss Turning Point’s damages claims for lack of standing.

Damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

The court held that the Act does not foreclose money damages against a municipality. It noted that the law was unsettled in the relevant federal circuit, but adopted reasoning distinguishing municipalities from states and distinguishing claims against municipalities from claims against individual or state officials. The court therefore denied the City’s motion to dismiss Clark’s and Aziz’s damages claims under the Act.

First Amendment claim

The plaintiffs alleged that the booking-photo policy violated the First Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion. Because the claim was brought against a municipality, they had to plausibly allege that an official municipal policy caused the constitutional injury. The court concluded that the NYPD policy qualified as such a policy.

The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a constitutional violation. Although the City had a legitimate interest in maintaining photographic records of arrested people and facilitating later identification, the court concluded that requiring observant Muslim women to remove their hijabs did not rationally advance those interests. The court reasoned that allowing a woman to wear her religious head covering in the booking photograph could accommodate her beliefs, require fewer resources, and preserve her ordinary appearance for identification. The court therefore denied the City’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim.

New York Constitution claim

Clark also asserted a religious-discrimination claim under Article I, § 3 of the New York Constitution. The court declined to dismiss the claim based on the City’s argument that the state constitution provides no private cause of action. The court also held that Clark plausibly alleged that the policy unreasonably interfered with her religious freedom. For those reasons, the court denied the City’s motion to dismiss Clark’s state constitutional claim.

Damages and disposition

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages. It dismissed Aziz’s state-law claim for compensatory damages without prejudice. The court’s conclusion states that the City’s motion to dismiss was granted only as to those two matters and was otherwise denied.

This opinion is classified as a procedural order because it ruled on a motion to dismiss, even though the court addressed the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations and explained why several claims could proceed.