Srour v. New York City, New York

Background

In an earlier opinion, the Court declared subsections (a)(2) and (a)(9) of New York City Administrative Code Section 10-303 facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The Court also permanently enjoined New York City and Edward A. Caban, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York Police Department, from enforcing those provisions. The Court had temporarily stayed that injunction until midnight on October 26, 2023. The defendants appealed the earlier opinion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The defendants then asked this Court to stay the declaratory judgment and permanent injunction while the appeal proceeded. In the alternative, they asked for a seven-day extension of the temporary stay. Joseph Srour opposed the motion.

Stay Pending Appeal

A stay pending appeal temporarily pauses the effect of a ruling while an appeal is ongoing. The Court considered the usual factors: whether the defendants made a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on appeal, whether they faced irreparable harm without a stay, whether Srour would suffer substantial harm if a stay were granted, and whether the public interest favored a stay.

The Court concluded that the defendants had not shown a strong likelihood of success. It rejected their argument that the Court had overlooked the current version of Section 3-03 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York, explaining that Srour lacked standing to challenge that provision and that the challenged portions of Section 10-303 had not been amended. The Court also reaffirmed its view that allowing licensing officers to deny permits based on “good moral character” was constitutionally defective because that standard was broad and discretionary, and that the defendants had not shown a historical tradition supporting the challenged regulations.

The Court also found that the defendants had not demonstrated irreparable harm. Although they argued that complying with the injunction could complicate and slow the NYPD’s permit decisions, the Court said the injunction only required them to stop denying permits on the two unconstitutional grounds. The defendants’ concerns about an interim process were speculative because they depended on multiple future events.

The Court further found that the public interest weighed against a stay because the public interest is served by protecting constitutional rights. Although the defendants cited public safety and well-being, the Court stated that important goals cannot justify unconstitutional methods. The Court noted that Srour argued a stay could continue infringing his Second Amendment rights while he began reapplying for a license, but it did not need to resolve the parties’ dispute about the possible effect on a new application because the other factors clearly weighed against a stay.

Disposition

The Court denied the defendants’ request for a stay pending appeal. It granted in part their alternative request to extend the temporary stay, continuing that stay through 11:59 p.m. on October 30, 2023. If the defendants applied to the Second Circuit for a stay before that deadline, the temporary stay would remain in effect until the Second Circuit decided that motion. Judge John P. Cronan directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 45.