SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(US)(ca2) 76

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
CompassCare – Appellant
Versus
Hochul – Respondent



United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term 2023

Argued: December 14, 2023 Decided: January 02, 2025

No. 22-951-cv (L) No. 22-1076-cv

COMPASSCARE, A NEW YORK NONPROFIT CORPORATION; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, DBA NIFLA, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION; FIRST BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH, A NEW YORK NONPROFIT CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,

v.

KATHY HOCHUL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; ROBERTA REARDON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE LABOR DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; AND LETITIA JAMES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York No. 1:19CV01409, Thomas J. McAvoy, Judge. Before: PARKER, PÉREZ, and MERRIAM, Circuit Judges.

CompassCare, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, and First Bible Baptist Church (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) challenge the constitutionality of New York Labor Law Section 203-e (“the Act”), which prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s or a dependent’s reproductive health decision making. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.) granted the State’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ expressive-association, speech, free exercise, religious autonomy, and vagueness claims. The District Court also permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act’s Notice Provision, which required employers issuing employee handbooks to include certain information regarding employees’ rights and remedies under the Act.

Thereafter, this Court decided Slattery v. Hochul, which held that an employer may have an associational-rights claim if the Act “forces [the employer] to employ individuals who act or have acted against the very mission of its organization.” 61 F.4th 278, 288 (2d Cir. 2023) (emphasis added). In light of that decision, we vacate the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ expressive-association claim, the grant of summary-judgment to Plaintiffs as to the Act’s Notice Provision, and the permanent injunction. We remand for the District Court to determine whether any Plaintiff has plausibly alleged an associational-rights claim under Slattery. We affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ free speech and free exercise claims.

JONATHAN CALEB DALTON, Alliance Defending Freedom, Lansdowne, VA (Kevin H. Theriot, Jacob P. Warner, John J. Bursch, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, AZ; John J. Bursch, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington D.C.; James P. Trainor, Trainor Law, PLLC, Malta, N.Y., on the briefs) for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

LAURA ETLINGER (Barbara D. Underwood, Galen Leigh Sherwin, Andrea Oser, on the briefs) for Letitia James, Attorney General of

2 the State of New York, Albany, N.Y., for Defe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top