Rusfeldt v. City of New York, New York
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-00594
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Rusfeldt v. City of New York, Judge Castel denied Rusfeldt’s preliminary-injunction request because he did not show likely harm to his speech rights.
Pastor Aden Rusfeldt, the City of New York, and the named police officials were affected by the denial of the requested preliminary injunction; the order left the underlying claims unresolved.
What happened
Pastor Aden Rusfeldt sought an order stopping New York City and named police officials from preventing him from criticizing LGBT+ lifestyles and behaviors on a public sidewalk near the 2022 Pride March. His request was based largely on his arrest for disorderly conduct after the 2021 Pride March, where he and others displayed hostile messages and a crowd gathered around them. The parties discussed a possible agreement, but negotiations broke down before the court ruled.
The court said the City did not intend to disperse or arrest Rusfeldt based on the content of protected speech or the crowd’s hostile reaction. The City also said it could act if Rusfeldt engaged in speech outside constitutional protection, such as fighting words or speech likely to produce imminent lawless action. Based on these positions and the evidence, the court found that Rusfeldt had not shown the City was likely to violate his protected speech rights at the 2022 March.
Judge Castel concluded that Rusfeldt had not shown likely irreparable harm, an essential requirement for a preliminary injunction, and therefore did not address the remaining requirements. The court denied Rusfeldt’s motion for a preliminary injunction and directed the clerk to terminate it.
The detailed version
- Rusfeldt v. City of New York, New York · No. 1:22-cv-00594
- P. Castel
- June 25, 2022
Background
Pastor Aden Rusfeldt sued the City of New York, police commissioners, a police captain, and unidentified police officers in their official capacities. The opinion states that his claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and primarily allege that the defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech. He also alleged Fourth Amendment false-arrest, Fifth Amendment due-process, and Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection violations, which the court understood to depend on the alleged speech violation.
Rusfeldt moved for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65. He principally sought to prevent the City from stopping him from criticizing LGBT+ lifestyles and behaviors on a public sidewalk or street corner along the route of the June 26, 2022 Pride March.
The court described events at the 2021 Pride March. Rusfeldt and three other people stood on a public sidewalk, displayed a banner with an anti-LGBT+ message, made hostile remarks toward march attendees, and used a bullhorn. A crowd gathered, exchanged insults with the group, and some people appeared to throw plastic bottles or cups containing liquid. Police officers told Rusfeldt and the group to stop their activities because of public-safety concerns. Officers also told Rusfeldt that he could continue displaying the banner if he removed it from a large metal pole. After Rusfeldt moved away from the original location, he was arrested for disorderly conduct under section 240.20 of the New York Penal Law.
Settlement discussions and 2022 March
After a June 10 hearing, the court encouraged the parties to negotiate. On June 16, Rusfeldt’s lawyer told the court, with the City’s consent, that the parties had reached final terms for a stipulated arrangement that would eliminate the need for a ruling on the injunction. The parties did not submit a written stipulation, and both sides later reported that negotiations had broken down.
The court noted that the parties appeared to agree that Rusfeldt could wear the same or similar clothing, display the same or similar sign using hollow cardboard wrapping-paper tubes rather than the large metal pole, and express the same or similar message as at the 2021 March. The City also stated that, so long as Rusfeldt and his group did not engage in constitutionally unprotected speech, neither the content of their protected speech nor the crowd’s reaction would be the basis for a dispersal order or arrest. The City maintained that it could respond to unprotected speech, including fighting words or speech intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action.
Court’s analysis
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary court order issued before final judgment. The person seeking one generally must show likely irreparable harm without the order, a likelihood of success on the legal claims or sufficiently serious merits questions, a favorable balance of hardships, and that the injunction serves the public interest. Because the requested order would restrict government action taken in the public interest, the court applied the requirement that Rusfeldt show a likelihood of success rather than merely serious questions for litigation.
The court recognized that losing First Amendment freedoms, even briefly, ordinarily qualifies as irreparable harm. But it concluded that Rusfeldt had not shown that the City was likely to violate his protected speech rights at the 2022 March. The court relied on the evidence from the 2021 March and the City’s stated position that protected speech and the crowd’s hostile response would not by themselves justify dispersal or arrest.
Because Rusfeldt failed to show likely irreparable harm, the court said it was unnecessary to examine the remaining preliminary-injunction requirements, including likelihood of success on the merits, the public interest, and the balance of equities.
Disposition
Judge P. Castel denied Rusfeldt’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The order did not resolve the ultimate merits of Rusfeldt’s underlying claims; it ruled on his request for preliminary relief. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, identified as Document 17.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.