On July 23, 2018, the Young Advocates for Fair Education (YAFFED) filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff advocacy group sued the New York governor, the Chancellor of the Board of Regents of New York, and the Commissioner of the New York State Education Department ...
read more >
On July 23, 2018, the Young Advocates for Fair Education (YAFFED) filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff advocacy group sued the New York governor, the Chancellor of the Board of Regents of New York, and the Commissioner of the New York State Education Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First Amendment. The plaintiff was represented by private counsel and sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The lawsuit challenged the Felder Amendment, which relaxed certain educational curriculum requirements for ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools in New York. YAFFED claimed that the Felder Amendment violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it favored a particular religion over other religious private schools and non-religious private schools.
YAFFED filed a motion on August 24, 2018 asking the court for a preliminary injunction to stop the defendants from enforcing the Felder Amendment and to require New York to enforce the previous curriculum requirements for all private schools. A month and a half later, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. They alleged that YAFFED lacked standing because it could not show that it was harmed by the Felder Amendment and that any harm that YAFFED alleged had yet to happen.
On January 16, 2019, District Judge Israel Leo Glasser granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied YAFFED’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Glasser found that YAFFED lacked standing for two reasons. First, YAFFED’s advocacy focus meant that their injury was “no different from that of a concerned citizen.” Second, YAFFED did not convincingly explain how its other injuries were caused by the Felder Amendment or how those other injuries could be redressed if the Amendment was declared void. Additionally, Judge Glasser concluded that YAFFED’s claims were not ripe for judicial review because YAFFED had not yet been harmed by the effects of the Felder Amendment. He determined that YAFFED was essentially seeking an advisory opinion, which is not allowed under federal standing doctrine. The case is now closed.
Nathan Santoscoy - 02/01/2019
compress summary
