Picard v. Magliano
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-03059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Picard v. Magliano, Judge Cote ordered the parties to propose a narrower injunction after an appeals court vacated the earlier judgment.
Michael Picard, District Attorney Darcel D. Clark, Chief of Public Safety Michael Magliano, and individuals whose advocacy may be covered by the narrower injunction.
What happened
Picard v. Magliano concerns a New York law restricting speech near courthouses about trials and courts. The court had previously found the law unconstitutional on its face and barred the defendants from enforcing it.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later vacated that judgment and sent the case back. It directed this court to create a narrower injunction limited to the circumstances presented by Picard’s conduct.
Judge Denise Cote ordered the parties to confer and submit a proposed injunction by September 23, 2022. If they could not agree, each side had to submit its own proposal and position on protecting nonintrusive, nondisruptive advocacy unrelated to a specific trial; responses were due September 30.
The detailed version
- Picard v. Magliano · No. 1:19-cv-03059
- Denise Cote
- Aug. 18, 2022
Background
On August 14, 2020, the court entered a final judgment holding New York Penal Law § 215.50(7) unconstitutional on its face and enjoining—meaning prohibiting—the defendants from enforcing it. The statute made it a crime, within 200 feet of a courthouse, to call aloud, shout, or display written signs concerning the conduct of a trial, the character of the court or jury, or a requested action or decision by the court or jury.
On August 17, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated that final judgment and remanded the case. The appeals court directed this court to craft a narrower injunction prohibiting application of § 215.50(7) only in the circumstances presented by Picard’s conduct.
Order
The court ordered the parties to confer and submit a proposed injunction by September 23, 2022. If they did not agree, each party had to submit a letter stating its proposed injunction and its position on an injunction barring enforcement of § 215.50(7) against an individual engaging in advocacy that is not intrusive or disruptive and is unconnected to any specific trial. The court ordered responses to the opposing party’s submission by September 30, 2022.
This order sets a process for defining the narrower injunction after the appellate remand. It does not itself state the final terms of that injunction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.