Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

United States of America, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 13 May 2022, No. ‎21-CV-4553 (ARR) (TAM)‎

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
No. ‎21-CV-4553 (ARR) (TAM)‎
Decision date
13 May 2022
Deciding body (English)
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Vaccination
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected

Case analisys

General Summary

Plaintiffs are citizens of New York City and have challenged the ‎constitutionality of the “Key to NYC” program, an executive order ‎issued in May 2021 by the Mayor of New York, which required the ‎showing of proof of vaccination to enter entertainment, recreational, ‎food, and fitness facilities. Plaintiffs have claimed that it violates ‎both the Supremacy Clause and their individual rights under the ‎First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants have ‎moved to dismiss the complaint and the Court has granted motion.‎

Facts of the case

On August 16, 2021, in response to the ongoing COVID-19 ‎pandemic, Bill de Blasio, who was the Mayor of New York City, ‎issued Emergency Executive Order (EEO) Number 225. This Order ‎instituted a program known as “Key to NYC,” which was meant to ‎help reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and incentivize people to ‎get the COVID-19 vaccine. Key to NYC prohibited most people from ‎entering indoor entertainment, recreation, food, and fitness facilities ‎without showing proof of vaccination against COVID-19. Entities ‎that operated facilities covered by the Key to NYC program were ‎required to check the vaccination status of individuals who entered ‎their facilities, including patrons, contractors, and employees. ‎Several of the main provisions of Key to NYC expired on March 7, ‎‎2022, pursuant to Emergency Executive Order Number 50. Though ‎the subsequent orders differed in some ways from EEO 225, the basic ‎provisions at issue in this case—the requirement that people show ‎proof of vaccination when entering indoor establishments and the ‎mandate that businesses enforce this requirement—remained largely ‎consistent. Plaintiffs in this case are residents of New York City who ‎take issue with the Key to NYC program. L.R. owns and operates “a ‎public relations and marketing company” and has clients who own ‎restaurants and bars. L.R. reports that she “experienced a drastic ‎decline [in business] due to” Key to NYC. Ms. R. also objects to ‎receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and to “disclos[ing] any sensitive ‎medical information to anyone outside of her healthcare provider or ‎insurance company.” S.N. owns two fitness centers in New York City ‎and saw “a precipitous loss of business from canceled memberships ‎based on” the Key to NYC program. Ms. N. has also “had to divert ‎employees from doing other regularly scheduled tasks to checking ‎for vaccination status” and has faced “a loss of employees due to the ‎vaccination status [of] her employees.” R.S. owns a dining ‎establishment that was “directly impacted by” the Key to NYC ‎program. She “received numerous reservation cancelations for indoor ‎dining and events based on” the program and was “faced with having ‎to terminate employees who do not furnish proof of vaccination.”

In ‎addition, Ms. S. “objects” to having to inspect customers’ vaccine ‎information and to providing this information herself “to gain access ‎to places of public accommodation.” T.F. “owns a beverage ‎distribution company and objects to having to furnish proof of ‎vaccination in order to visit her customers or conduct basic ‎transactions in the City of New York.” “As a result,” she explains, ‎her business has “suffer[ed] detrimental financial effects.” J.F., W.P., ‎and A.H. sue on the basis that they “object[]” to having to provide ‎their vaccination information to entities covered by the Key to NYC ‎program. Ms. F. adds that, while the original version of Key to NYC ‎was in effect, she “w[as] unable to enjoy life in New York City ‎because [she] w[ould] not furnish her vaccine status to anyone ‎outside of her healthcare provider or insurance plan.” Mr. P., ‎meanwhile, asserts that he was “placed at a disadvantage” in his ‎campaign for mayor because “he [was] barred from entering ‎establishments in the City of New York in order to attend meetings ‎and events.” Finally, C.A., C.M., and A.Y. all “object to having to ‎having to disclose their vaccination status to anyone who is not a ‎licensed medical professional.” They claim “[t]hey [we]re precluded ‎from business opportunities and job opportunities because of” the ‎Key to NYC program.‎

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Injunctive and declaratory relief
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court has analyzed the arguments of the Plaintiffs and ‎Defendants and has reasoned that:‎ ‎

  1. Plaintiffs have sought an order enjoining the Defendants from ‎enforcing the Key to NYC program. When Plaintiffs filed the ‎suit, the Key to NYC program included a provision requiring ‎covered entities to check the vaccination status of patrons ‎who entered their facilities, and many of Plaintiffs’ claims ‎target this rule specifically, alleging that it violated their ‎constitutional rights as patrons or would-be patrons. At the ‎time of the decisions, however, the rule was no longer in ‎effect—though a modified version of Key to NYC remained, ‎it did not apply to patrons. Therefore, the Court found that it ‎could not enjoin what no longer existed and because the ‎patron-specific rule had expired, the claims Plaintiffs brought ‎in their capacity as patrons were found moot.‎ ‎
  2. Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim alleged that they had been ‎harmed by Key to NYC because its requirements force them ‎to take on expenses, they would not have otherwise, including ‎the costs of assigning an employee to check people’s ‎vaccination status and of terminating valuable employees ‎who have refused to be vaccinated. The Court has argued that ‎this claim rests on the financial injuries Plaintiffs have ‎experienced as business owners, under the Fourth ‎Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supremacy ‎Clause. The Court argues that those provisions posed a more ‎direct, personal theory of harm. To have standing for their ‎Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Supremacy ‎Clause claims, Plaintiffs must have been personally injured ‎by Key to NYC’s requirement that business owners who ‎interact with the public retain proof that they had been ‎vaccinated—for example, by being asked to show proof of ‎vaccination or by being fined for refusing to do so. The ‎complaint, however, did not present such allegations, and ‎Plaintiffs have claimed only that they “object” to being ‎vaccinated or to providing proof of vaccination. Because ‎Plaintiffs did not established a concrete, particularized injury, ‎The Court found that they did not have standing to bring their ‎claims.‎
  3. Plaintiffs also alleged that Key to NYC amounts to an ‎unconstitutional taking, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. ‎Defendants moved to dismiss this claim, and to survive ‎Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs must state “enough facts to ‎state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
  4. The only allegations Plaintiffs made about the economic ‎impact of the remaining Key to NYC provisions on their ‎businesses were that they have “had to divert employees from ‎doing other regularly scheduled tasks to checking for ‎vaccination status” and that they were “facing a loss of ‎employees due to [the employees’] vaccination status.” ‎Though these allegations have shown that Plaintiffs ‎experienced some economic impact from Key to NYC, the ‎impact is significant: under the revised version of Key to ‎NYC, business owners had to keep vaccination records for ‎their employees but did not need to regularly “divert” ‎employees to check the vaccination status of patrons and ‎visitors, and there was no claim that any employees who ‎refused to provide proof of vaccination were irreplaceable or ‎central to the financial success of Plaintiffs’ businesses. ‎Furthermore, Plaintiffs operated and worked with entities that ‎were ordinarily subject to a panoply of health-related ‎regulations, therefore it is implausible that the institution of ‎new regulations would come as a surprise, or that such ‎changes would so substantially interfere with any ‎expectations Plaintiffs may have had, as to require ‎compensation.‎
  5. Finally, the Court found that Key to NYC was a temporary ‎program and did not preclude all economic use of Plaintiffs’ ‎property, it was a negative restriction on their property use, ‎rather than an affirmative exploitation by the state, and it was ‎not a physical invasion or permanent appropriation of any of ‎the Plaintiffs’ assets. Any interference with Plaintiffs’ ‎property arose from a public program adjusting the benefits ‎and burdens of economic life to promote the common good, ‎in this case, reducing the transmission of COVID-19.‎
Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amendment, Fourth ‎Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Supremacy Clause claims ‎without prejudice and dismissed their Fifth Amendment claim with ‎prejudice.‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Freedom to conduct a business
  • Right to privacy
  • Right to property
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and ‎Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution‎
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
  • Health v. freedom to conduct a business
  • Health v. right to privacy (private and family life)
  • Health v. property
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court applied balancing techniques regarding the common good ‎and the individual rights of the Plaintiffs:‎ ‎“Any interference with Plaintiffs’ property arises from a public ‎program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to ‎promote the common good, in this case, reducing the transmission of ‎COVID-19.” ‎

Author of the case note
Maíra Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 1 November 2022

More cases from United States of America

  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 25 May 2022, Allen Gahl v. Aurora Healthcare
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
    Area: Health, right to information and freedom of expression
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression; Freedom of information
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
    Area: Consumer protection
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
    Area: Consumer protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to property
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from United States of America

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 13 May 2022, No. ‎21-CV-4553 (ARR) (TAM)‎
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies