Goldstein v. Hochul
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-08300
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Goldstein v. Hochul, Judge Broderick denied plaintiffs’ emergency injunction request because their appeal had shifted jurisdiction to the Second Circuit.
The ruling affected Steven Goldstein, Meir Ornstein, and Congregation Bnei Matisyahu by denying their request to block enforcement of the challenged provision while their appeal was pending. It left the issue for the Second Circuit and did not grant an injunction against the defendants.
What happened
In Goldstein v. Hochul, Steven Goldstein, Meir Ornstein, and Congregation Bnei Matisyahu sought to stop defendants from enforcing a provision of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act.
The plaintiffs had already appealed Judge Broderick’s earlier order denying a preliminary injunction. While that appeal was pending, they asked the district court for an emergency injunction using Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Broderick denied the motion. He ruled that the issue was before the Second Circuit, and that the requested injunction would not preserve the existing situation but would eliminate the dispute before the appeal was decided.
The detailed version
- Goldstein v. Hochul · No. 1:22-cv-08300
- Vernon Broderick
- July 19, 2023
Background
Steven Goldstein, individually and on behalf of Congregation Bnei Matisyahu, and Meir Ornstein sued Kathy Hochul, Letitia James, Edward Caban, Louis Falco, III, Eric Gonzalez, and Thomas Walsh, II, in their official capacities. The plaintiffs challenged enforcement of New York Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(c), a provision of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act. They previously sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The court denied the temporary restraining order on October 3, 2022, and denied the preliminary-injunction request on June 28, 2023.
Motion and jurisdiction
The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit from the June 28 order. They then asked the district court for an emergency injunction pending appeal under Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court treated Rule 62(d) as the most applicable subsection. That rule allows a district court, while an appeal from an interlocutory order is pending, to suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on appropriate terms. The court explained that filing a notice of appeal generally gives the appeals court jurisdiction over the issues being appealed and removes the district court’s control over those issues.
The court also explained that Rule 62(d) provides only a narrow exception allowing a district court to grant relief needed to preserve the status quo—that is, the existing situation—while an appeal is pending. The plaintiffs sought an injunction addressing the same enforcement question raised in their appeal. They did not explain why their request fit within the exception for preserving the status quo or why it should not be treated as a request to reconsider the June 28 order.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motion for an emergency injunction. He ruled that the Second Circuit, rather than the district court, had jurisdiction to decide whether the preliminary injunction had been properly denied. He further ruled that granting the requested relief would not preserve the status quo and would eliminate the controversy before the Second Circuit could decide the appeal. The court added that, if it treated the motion as one seeking reconsideration, it would deny it as untimely and would find no reason to revisit the June 28 order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.