The Brooklyn Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored…
The Brooklyn Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Kosinski
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-07667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Brooklyn Branch v. Kosinski, Judge Failla allowed briefing on defendants’ dismissal motion and did not decide the constitutional challenge.
The order affected the Brooklyn Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the defendants by setting a briefing schedule for the contemplated motion to dismiss and ending the need for the scheduled pre-motion conference.
What happened
The Brooklyn Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People challenged a New York election law that makes it a crime to provide refreshments or other support to voters waiting in line. In its response to defendants’ proposed motion to dismiss, the organization argued that it had standing and that the law violated free-speech protections and was vague and overly broad.
The court did not decide whether the challenge could proceed or whether the law was constitutional. Instead, it waived the usual requirement of a pre-motion conference and allowed the parties to brief defendants’ motion to dismiss directly.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla set deadlines for the motion, opposition, and reply; adjourned the January 27 conference indefinitely; and directed the clerk to terminate the pending pre-motion letters. The order did not grant or deny the proposed motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- The Brooklyn Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored… · No. 1:21-cv-07667
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 25, 2022
Background
The Brooklyn Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People challenged New York Election Law § 17-140. The organization alleged that the law criminalizes providing refreshments or other supportive provisions to voters waiting in line and that the law violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
The defendants submitted pre-motion letters describing their contemplated motion to dismiss. The plaintiff responded that it had standing because it faced a credible threat to planned conduct without needing to risk arrest or prosecution. The plaintiff also argued that providing refreshments to voters was expressive conduct, that the law was not sufficiently tailored to a compelling state interest, and that its wording could lead to unpredictable or arbitrary enforcement. These arguments were the plaintiff’s positions; the court did not resolve them in this order.
Court’s action
Judge Katherine Polk Failla dispensed with the court’s usual pre-motion conference requirement and allowed the parties to proceed directly to briefing on the contemplated motion to dismiss. Defendants’ motion was due March 1, 2022; the plaintiff’s opposition was due March 31, 2022; and defendants’ reply was due April 14, 2022.
The court also adjourned the conference scheduled for January 27, 2022, indefinitely and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions at docket numbers 28 and 29. The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide the plaintiff’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.