Case: Slattery v. Cuomo

1:20-cv-00112 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York

Filed Date: Jan. 31, 2020

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case challenging New York's "Boss Bill," which created a protected class based on reproductive health decision-making and forbade employers from making any employment-related decisions based on the reproductive health choices of employees, including their involvement in or advocacy for abortion or sexual relationships outside of marriage.  On January 31, 2020, a crisis pregnancy center operator and its founder filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern Dis…

This is a case challenging New York's "Boss Bill," which created a protected class based on reproductive health decision-making and forbade employers from making any employment-related decisions based on the reproductive health choices of employees, including their involvement in or advocacy for abortion or sexual relationships outside of marriage. 

On January 31, 2020, a crisis pregnancy center operator and its founder filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the governor and attorney general of New York, as well as the commissioner of the State's department of labor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by the Thomas More Society and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. They claimed that the law violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, religion, and association, and their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by prohibiting their workplace policy of hiring only those who adhered to their mission and policy against abortion and sexual relationships outside of marriage. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby and Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks. 

The plaintiffs' first claim alleged that the law violated their First Amendment right to association because it denied them "the right to organize their staff, to communicate to their staff, to correct, discipline, or terminate staff who reject plaintiffs' moral and religious position, and to circulate written materials in accordance with their beliefs that abortion is a grave moral wrong and that sexual abstinence outside of marriage is a grave moral duty." Second, they argued that it suppressed their First Amendment right to freedom of speech by prohibiting them from expressing their preference for hiring employees who shared their beliefs and from outwardly supporting pro-life and pro-chastity values in the workplace. 

Next, they argued that the law impinged on their free exercise of religion by disfavoring the plaintiffs' religious beliefs and targeting them for punishment and that the law interfered with their ability to convey their religious beliefs and carry out their mission. Lastly, they alleged that the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Author’s note: Count IV of the complaint alleges a violation of the equal protection clause, but clearly describes a due process claim.) Plaintiffs argued that the law was void for vagueness, as it did not provide fair notice of prohibited conduct. They argued that the term "reproductive health decision making" was both too broad and vague. The term could include not just medical decision making, but also activism, the use of contraception, or even advocating for those who perform abortions. 

On March 4, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice that this case was related to Compasscare v. Cuomo, 1:19-CV-1409. The court agreed and, two days later, reassigned the case to Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy and Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart for all further proceedings. 

On April 17, 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion on March 31, 2021, addressing each claim separately.

As to the free exercise claim, the court found that the statute was facially neutral because an employer who fired an employee for using or not using contraception would be in violation of the law either way. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not made a valid showing that the statute targeted their religious beliefs in any way. The court stated that the fact that the law would affect the plaintiffs did not mean that it targeted them for their religious beliefs. The court found that the statements provided by the defendants did not support the argument that legislators had sought to target them. The court also agreed with the defendants that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the right to privacy and autonomy as it related to health-care decisions and in preventing workplace discrimination. As to the free speech claim, the court agreed with the defendants that the law regulated conduct, was content-neutral, and did not target pro-life speech directly. The regulation did not block the plaintiffs from speaking out against abortion and did not block them from telling employees about their beliefs regarding abortion, birth control, or contraception. 

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had overstated the interference with their expressive rights imposed by the law. The statute did not apply to all people associated with the organization, only the employees. Also the statute did not apply to ministers or volunteers. The plaintiffs also had the right to fire anyone who espoused views contrary to their own; the law, therefore, did not put "any direct limits on the expressive activity that plaintiffs insisted was at the core of their agenda." The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the statute was too vague and determined that the alleged vague terms were given context by other parts of the statute, as well as by using a reasonable person standard for certain terms that the plaintiffs had alleged were too vague, like "employee" and "employer." 531 F.Supp.3d 547. 

On April 8, 2021, the plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 27, 2023, the appellate court reversed the district court's decision with respect to the plaintiffs' association claim and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the law significantly burdened their right to freedom of expressive association and did not survive strict scrutiny. The Second Circuit remanded to the district court for further proceedings on only that claim. 

The Second Circuit determined that the district court had incorrectly applied rational basis scrutiny and instead should have applied strict scrutiny. Applying strict scrutiny, the appellate court held that the district court erred in dismissing the expressive association claim. The circuit court found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the law severely burdened their right to freedom of expressive association because it would force them to employ individuals who had acted or would act against the mission of their organization. Because the defendants had not shown that the law was the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest, it could not survive strict scrutiny and justify the severe burden on the plaintiffs' right. 531 F.Supp.3d 547. 

As of March 19, 2023, this case was ongoing. 

Summary Authors

Rhea Sharma (3/20/2023)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16853787/parties/slattery-v-cuomo/


Attorney for Plaintiff

-, J. Matthew

-, Mary Catherine

Attorney for Defendant
Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

-, Adrianne Spoto,

-, Gabriella Larios,

-, Molly Biklen,

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

1:20-cv-00112

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 31, 2020

Complaint
33

1:20-cv-00112

Decision and Order

March 31, 2021

March 31, 2021

Order/Opinion

531 F.Supp.3d 531

102-1

21-911

Opinion

Slattery v. Hochul

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Feb. 27, 2023

Feb. 27, 2023

Order/Opinion

61 F.4th 61

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16853787/slattery-v-cuomo/

Last updated April 8, 2024, 3:14 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon (Filing fee $400 receipt number ANYNDC-5017463) filed by Christopher T. Slattery, The Evergreen Association, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(hmr) (Entered: 02/04/2020)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Jan. 31, 2020

Jan. 31, 2020

Clearinghouse
2

Summonses Issued as to Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Issued for Roberta Reardon, # 2 Summons Issued for Letitia James)(hmr) (Entered: 02/04/2020)

Feb. 3, 2020

Feb. 3, 2020

PACER
3

G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED: Initial Conference set for 5/4/2020 at 11:30 AM by telephone before Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks. Civil Case Management Plan must be filed and Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by the parties on or before 4/27/2020. (Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2, mandatory disclosures are to be exchanged among the parties but are NOT to be filed with the Court.) (hmr) (Entered: 02/04/2020)

Feb. 3, 2020

Feb. 3, 2020

PACER
4

NOTICE of Admission Requirement as to Party Plaintiffs; Attorney J. Matthew Belz, Email address is jmbelz@olblaw.com. Phone number is (314) 726-2800. Admissions due by 2/18/2020. {A copy of this notice was mailed to Attorney Belz via regular mail on 2/3/2020.](hmr) (Entered: 02/04/2020)

Feb. 3, 2020

Feb. 3, 2020

PACER

Notice re: Compliance with General Order #12: Pursuant to General Order #12, counsel is required to file the Notice of Related Case form as a separate document. Refer to the Court's website: www.nynd.uscourts.gov for further instructions. Counsel may access the fillable form using the following link: www.nynd.uscourts.gov/content/general-order-12 (hmr)

Feb. 5, 2020

Feb. 5, 2020

PACER
5

MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of James Matthew Belz Filing fee $100, receipt number ANYNDC-5031116. filed by Christopher T. Slattery. Motions referred to Therese Wiley Dancks. (Ferrara, Christopher) (Entered: 02/17/2020)

Feb. 17, 2020

Feb. 17, 2020

PACER

Notice of Filing Deficiency re: 5 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice James M. Belz. Pursuant to LR 83.1(d), the sponsor and/or applicant MUST provide the following required documents: new Petition for Admission form set by the Clerk, available on the Court's website The corrected documents should be electronically filed with the Court by selecting the 'Supplemental Admission documents' event, which is found under the 'Other Documents' menu. Once all requirements under LR 83.1(d) have been met, the motion will be forwarded to the assigned Magistrate Judge for consideration. (tad, )

Feb. 18, 2020

Feb. 18, 2020

PACER
6

Supplemental Admission documents re: 5 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice. (Ferrara, Christopher) (Entered: 02/18/2020)

Feb. 18, 2020

Feb. 18, 2020

PACER
7

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Christopher T. Slattery. Andrew M. Cuomo served on 2/13/2020, answer due 3/5/2020. (Ferrara, Christopher) (Entered: 02/19/2020)

Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

PACER
8

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Christopher T. Slattery. Letitia James served on 2/13/2020, answer due 3/5/2020. (Ferrara, Christopher) (Entered: 02/19/2020)

Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

PACER
9

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Christopher T. Slattery. Roberta Reardon served on 2/13/2020, answer due 3/5/2020. (Ferrara, Christopher) (Entered: 02/19/2020)

Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

PACER
10

TEXT ORDER granting 5 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of James Belz, Esq. for Christopher Slattery. Counsel is hereby advised that as of January 16, 2018, the NYND has converted to NextGen. Due to this conversion, you must now register for Pro Hac Vice access through your PACER account. This is the only notice you will receive concerning this requirement. You will not have access to electronically file in this case until your Pro Hac Vice request has been processed through the PACER system. Step-by-step instructions on how to complete this process are available at http://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/attorney-admissions-nextgen. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks on 2/20/2020. (sg ) (Entered: 02/20/2020)

Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

PACER

Order on Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice

Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

PACER
11

NOTICE of Appearance by Adrienne J. Kerwin on behalf of Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon (Kerwin, Adrienne) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

March 2, 2020

March 2, 2020

PACER
12

TEXT ORDER: Court notes that Plaintiff indicated this case is related to 1:19-CV-1409 (TJM/DJS), and that the Clerk entered a Notice re: Compliance with General Order #12 on 2/5/2020 requiring counsel to file a Notice of Related Case. Plaintiff is directed to complete a Notice of Related Cases form completely filling out as required (see the Court's website www.nynd.uscourts.gov, under "civil forms") and submit it to the Court in this case no later than 3/9/2020 by using "Civil Events>Other Filings>Other Documents>Notice of Related Case." A response date will be set for Defendants' counsel to respond to the Notice of Related Case, and then the application will be reviewed by the District Judge in case 1:19-CV-1409 for decision. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks on 3/3/2020. (sg ) (Entered: 03/03/2020)

March 3, 2020

March 3, 2020

PACER

~Util - Set/Reset Answer Deadlines

March 3, 2020

March 3, 2020

PACER

Order

March 3, 2020

March 3, 2020

PACER
13

TEXT ORDER: Court has reviewed the 11 Notice of Appearance filed by counsel for defendants Andrew Cuomo, Letitia James, and Roberta Reardon, which includes a request for extension of time for defendants to respond to the Complaint. Request for extension granted. All Defendants' answer due 4/10/2020. Court reminds counsel that requests for extension of deadlines must include a good-cause reason for the requested extension, even if the parties stipulate to the extension. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks on 3/3/2020. (sg ) (Entered: 03/03/2020)

March 3, 2020

March 3, 2020

PACER
14

Notice of Related Case by Christopher T. Slattery submitted to Judge Thomas J. McAvoy . Objections due by 3/11/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Ferrara, Christopher) (Entered: 03/04/2020)

March 4, 2020

March 4, 2020

RECAP
15

TEXT ORDER granting 14 Notice of Related Case. Authorized by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 3/6/20. (sfp, ) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

March 6, 2020

March 6, 2020

PACER

Order on Notice of Related Case

March 6, 2020

March 6, 2020

PACER

Order Reassigning Case

March 6, 2020

March 6, 2020

PACER

Order on Letter Request

March 6, 2020

March 6, 2020

PACER
16

TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy and Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart for all further proceedings. Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby, Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks no longer assigned to case. Authorized by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 3/6/2020. (amt) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

March 6, 2020

March 6, 2020

PACER
17

Letter Motion from Adrienne J. Kerwin for Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon requesting briefing schedule for motion to dismiss submitted to Judge McAvoy . (Kerwin, Adrienne) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

March 6, 2020

March 6, 2020

PACER
18

TEXT ORDER denying the 17 Letter Request w/leave to renew. The Court will consider an application that complies with this Court's Standing Order, which can be found on the Court's website: https://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/sites/nynd/files/TJM%20Standing%20Order.pdf. Authorized by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 3/6/2020. (amt) (Entered: 03/06/2020)

March 6, 2020

March 6, 2020

PACER
19

STIPULATION re. a briefing schedule by Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon submitted to Judge McAvoy. (Kerwin, Adrienne) (Entered: 03/11/2020)

March 11, 2020

March 11, 2020

PACER
20

Letter Motion from Adrienne J. Kerwin for Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon requesting one week extension submitted to Judge McAvoy . (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation)(Kerwin, Adrienne) (Entered: 04/09/2020)

April 9, 2020

April 9, 2020

PACER
21

TEXT ORDER granting Defendants' 20 Letter Request for an extension of time to file an Answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint in this matter. Defendants shall file their response by April 17, 2020. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 4/10/2020. (mab) (Entered: 04/10/2020)

April 10, 2020

April 10, 2020

PACER

Order on Letter Request

April 10, 2020

April 10, 2020

PACER
22

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Motion Hearing set for 6/26/2020 10:00 AM in Binghamton before Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy Response to Motion due by 6/9/2020 Reply to Response to Motion due by 6/15/2020. filed by Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Appendix A, # 3 Appendix B) (Kerwin, Adrienne) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

April 17, 2020

April 17, 2020

RECAP

TEXT NOTICE: The Rule 16 Initial Conference scheduled for May 4, 2020 and the deadline for the parties to submit a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and to exchange Mandatory Disclosures are ADJOURNED without date pending a decision on the dispositive motion. (mab)

April 20, 2020

April 20, 2020

PACER
23

NOTICE of Appearance by J. Matthew Belz on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Belz, J. Matthew) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

PACER
24

STIPULATION re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon submitted to Judge McAvoy. (Kerwin, Adrienne) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

May 11, 2020

May 11, 2020

PACER

Order Setting Hearing on Motion

May 11, 2020

May 11, 2020

PACER
25

TEXT ORDER granting 24 Stipulation to adjourn Deft's 22 Motion to Dismiss to Judge McAvoy's 7/13/20 Motion Calendar. Response to Motion is due by 6/17/2020. Reply to Response to Motion is due by 7/1/2020. Authorized by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 5/11/20. (sfp, ) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

May 11, 2020

May 11, 2020

PACER
26

Unopposed Letter Motion from Matt Belz for Christopher T. Slattery, The Evergreen Association, Inc. requesting that plaintiffs be permitted to submit a memorandum of law in opposition to defendants motion to dismiss up to thirty (30) pages submitted to Judge McAvoy . (Belz, J. Matthew) (Entered: 06/17/2020)

June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

PACER
27

TEXT ORDER denying Plaintiff's 26 Letter Request with leave to renew. Plaintiff should explain to the Court why additional pages are necessary to address the issues raised in Defendants' motion. Authorized by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 6/17/2020. (amt) (Entered: 06/17/2020)

June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

PACER
28

Revised, Unopposed Letter Motion from Matt Belz for Christopher T. Slattery, The Evergreen Association, Inc. requesting that plaintiffs be permitted to submit a memorandum of law in opposition to defendants motion to dismiss, up to thirty (30) pages instead of twenty-five (25) submitted to Judge McAvoy . (Belz, J. Matthew) (Entered: 06/17/2020)

June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

PACER
29

RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Christopher T. Slattery, The Evergreen Association, Inc.. (Belz, J. Matthew) (Entered: 06/17/2020)

June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

PACER
30

Letter Motion from Matt Belz for Christopher T. Slattery, The Evergreen Association, Inc. requesting Withdrawal of Letter Motion (Doc. 28) submitted to Judge McAvoy . (Belz, J. Matthew) (Entered: 06/17/2020)

June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

PACER

Order on Letter Request

June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

PACER
31

NOTICE of Appearance by Timothy Belz on behalf of Christopher T. Slattery, The Evergreen Association, Inc. (Belz, Timothy) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

PACER
32

REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon. (Kerwin, Adrienne) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER

COURT TEXT NOTICE advising the motions currently pending before Senior Judge McAvoy are on SUBMIT; NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY. (amt)

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER
33

DECISION & ORDER: that the Defendants' motion to dismiss, dkt. # 22, is hereby Granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 03/31/2021. (hmr) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

March 31, 2021

March 31, 2021

Clearinghouse
34

JUDGMENT: It is Ordered and Adjudged: that the Defendants' motion to dismiss, dkt. # 22 is hereby Granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to Close the case. All pursuant to the Dkt. No. 33 Decision and Order of the Honorable Senior U.S. District Court Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, dated 03/31/2021.(hmr) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

March 31, 2021

March 31, 2021

PACER
35

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 34 Judgment, by Christopher T. Slattery, The Evergreen Association, Inc.. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ANYNDC-5487161. (Belz, J. Matthew) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

April 8, 2021

April 8, 2021

RECAP
36

ELECTRONIC NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION sent to US Court of Appeals re 35 Notice of Appeal. (hmr) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

April 9, 2021

April 9, 2021

PACER

USCA Case Number 21-911 for 35 Notice of Appeal filed by The Evergreen Association, Inc., Christopher T. Slattery. (nas, )

May 26, 2021

May 26, 2021

PACER
37

ORDER of USCA [Certified Copy Issued on 02/27/2023] as to 35 Notice of Appeal filed by The Evergreen Association, Inc., Christopher T. Slattery: For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court with respect to Evergreen's expressive association claim, affirm the judgment in all other respects, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. (hmr) (Entered: 02/27/2023)

Feb. 27, 2023

Feb. 27, 2023

PACER
38

MANDATE of USCA [Issued on 4/13/2023] as to 35 Notice of Appeal filed by The Evergreen Association, Inc., Christopher T. Slattery: It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the judgment of the district court is Reversed with respect to Evergreen's expressive association claim, Affirmed in all other respects, and the cause is Remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this Court's opinion. (hmr) (Entered: 04/14/2023)

April 13, 2023

April 13, 2023

PACER
39

TEXT ORDER: Based upon the filing of the 38 Mandate, this matter has be reinstated to the Court's active docket. The Defendants' shall file an Answer on or before 5/5/2023. Authorized by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 4/20/2023. (amt) (Entered: 04/20/2023)

April 20, 2023

April 20, 2023

PACER

Order AND ~Util - Set/Reset Answer Deadlines

April 20, 2023

April 20, 2023

PACER
40

ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon.(Kerwin, Adrienne) (Entered: 05/05/2023)

May 5, 2023

May 5, 2023

PACER
41

TEXT ORDER: A Telephonic Initial Rule 16 Conference set for 5/31/2023 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart.The parties are directed to dial +1 518-217-2288, and enter ID code 149 088 923 to connect to the conference. ( Civil Case Management Plan must be filed and Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by the parties on or before 5/24/2023. (Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2, mandatory disclosures are to be exchanged among the parties but are NOT to be filed with the Court.). So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 5/12/2023. (gmd) (Entered: 05/12/2023)

May 12, 2023

May 12, 2023

PACER

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings

May 12, 2023

May 12, 2023

PACER
42

CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN on behalf of all parties by Andrew M. Cuomo, Letitia James, Roberta Reardon. (Kerwin, Adrienne) (Entered: 05/24/2023)

May 24, 2023

May 24, 2023

PACER

Text Minute Entry for a Telephone Rule 16 Conference held on 5/31/2023 before Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart. The Court hears from counsel as to their positions and how they intend to proceed in this matter. Court discusses potential for settlement. The Court discusses the Mandatory Mediation Program with counsel and exempts this matter from the program. Scheduling Order deadlines set. A Uniform Pretrial Order will be issued. Counsel may contact the court if any issues arise after attempting to resolve them without intervention of court. Appearances: J. Matthew Belz, Esq., for plaintiff(s); Adrienne J. Kerwin, Esq., for defendant(s). Time: 11:00 AM 11:06 AM.(gmd)

May 31, 2023

May 31, 2023

PACER
43

UNIFORM PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Joinder of Parties due by 7/7/2023. Amended Pleadings due by 7/7/2023. Discovery due by 11/24/2023. Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Deadline is 8/24/2023. Defendants Expert Disclosure Deadline is 10/10/2023. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is 10/25/2023. Motions to be filed by 1/26/2024. Anticipated length of trial: 2 - 3 Days. Preferred Trial Location: Albany. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 6/1/2023. (gmd) (Entered: 06/01/2023)

June 1, 2023

June 1, 2023

PACER

Order

June 1, 2023

June 1, 2023

PACER
44

TEXT ORDER: The court held an Initial Rule 16 Conference on 5/31/2023 and sua sponte, exempts this matter from the Mandatory Mediation Program. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 6/1/2023. (gmd) (Entered: 06/01/2023)

June 1, 2023

June 1, 2023

PACER
45

STATEMENT OF COSTS of USCA [Certified Copy Issued on 7/26/2023] as to 35 Notice of Appeal filed by The Evergreen Association, Inc., Christopher T. Slattery: It is Hereby Ordered that costs are taxed in the amount of $1,078.00 in favor of the Appellants. (hmr) (Entered: 07/26/2023)

July 26, 2023

July 26, 2023

PACER
46

Letter Request/Motion

Nov. 7, 2023

Nov. 7, 2023

PACER

Order on Letter Request

Nov. 8, 2023

Nov. 8, 2023

PACER
50

Letter Request/Motion

Jan. 22, 2024

Jan. 22, 2024

PACER

Order on Letter Request

Jan. 29, 2024

Jan. 29, 2024

PACER

Order AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Parties

March 15, 2024

March 15, 2024

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Reproductive Issues

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 31, 2020

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Crisis pregnancy center operator and its founder.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Non-profit religious organization

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

New York, State

New York, State

New York, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Free Exercise Clause

Freedom of speech/association

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

Reproductive rights:

Abortion

Contraception