Goldstein v. Hochul

680 F.Supp.3d 370

Steven GOLDSTEIN individually and on behalf ofCongregation Bnei Matisyahu, and Meir Ornstein, Plaintiffs, v. Kathy HOCHUL, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of New York;Letitia James, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York;Keechant Sewell, in her official capacity as Commissioner ofthe New York City Police Department; Louis Falco, III,in his official capacity as Rockland County Sheriff;Eric Gonzalez, in his official capacity as the District Attorney of Kings County; andThomas Walsh, II, in his official capacity asthe District Attorney of Rockland County, Defendants.

22-CV-8300 (VSB)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Signed June 28, 2023

Cory Morris, Law Offices of Cory H. Morris, Hauppauge, New York, Ameer N. Benno, Benno & Associates P.C., New York, New York, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Matthew Lawrence Conrad, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, New York, Nicholas Robert Ciappetta, New York City Law Department, Administrative Law and Regulatory Litigation Division, New York, New York, Thomas Edward Humbach, County of Rockland Department of Law, New York, New York, Patrick John Fischer, Office of the County Attorney, New City, New York, Counsel for Defendants.

William James Taylor, Jr., Everytown Law, New York, New York, Counsel for Amicus, Everytown for Gun Safety.

OPINION & ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiffs Meir Ornstein ("Ornstein") and Steven Goldstein ("Goldstein") individually and on behalf of Congregation Bnei Matisyahu (the "Congregation" together with Ornstein and Goldstein, the "Plaintiffs"), initiated this action by filing a verified complaint. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a proposed order to show cause requesting a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and preliminary injunction ("PI") enjoining Defendants Governor Kathy Hochul ("Governor Hochul"), Attorney General Letitia James ("Attorney General James" together with Governor Hochul, the "State Defendants"), Commissioner of the New York City Police Department Keechant Sewell ("Commissioner Sewell")¹, District Attorney of King's County Eric Gonzalez ("District Attorney Gonzalez" together with Commissioner Sewell, the "City Defendants"), Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, III ("Sheriff Falco"), and District Attorney of Rockland County Thomas Walsh, II ("District Attorney Walsh" together with Sheriff Falco, the "County Defendants") from enforcing New York Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(c) (the "Challenged Provision"). On October 3, 2022, I denied Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order for failure to show "immediate and irreparable injury sufficient to satisfy the stringent requirements for a temporary restraining order." (Doc. 21 at 1-2.) Currently before me is Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

I. Procedural History and Background

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down New York Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) on the grounds that New York State's firearm licensing scheme violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing "law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs" to bear arms in public for self-defense. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2156, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022); see also Kachalsky v. Cnty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 96 (2d Cir. 2012), abrogated by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022). New York Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) required applicants to demonstrate a special need for self-defense distinguishable from that of the general community in order to be issued a public-carry license. The Court rejected the previous "two-step" framework, holding that "when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct" and that the Government may not justify regulation related to carrying a firearm on the basis that "the regulation promotes an important interest". Id. at 2125-26. Under Bruen, if a governmental entity wishes to regulate conduct covered by the "plain text" of the Second Amendment, it must "demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Id. at 2126. "Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command.' " Id. at 2126 (quoting Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36, 50 n.10, 81 S.Ct. 997, 6 L.Ed.2d 105 (1961)).

The Concealed Carry Improvement Act ("CCIA") was enacted on July 1, 2022 following an Extraordinary Session of the New York State Legislature convened on June 30, 2023 in response to the Bruen decision to address "necessary statutory changes regarding firearm safety". See Daphne Jordan, Extraordinary Session in Extraordinary Times, NYSENATE.GOV (2022), https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/2022/daphne-jordan/extraordinary-session-extraordinary-times (last visited Jun 27, 2023). The CCIA states, in relevant part:

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location, and such person knows or reasonably should know such location is a sensitive location.²

N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e(1) (2022). The CCIA made several changes to the licensing process to ensure that carry licenses would only be provided to law-abiding persons and narrowed the set of Sensitive Locations where carrying "a firearm, rifle or shotgun" would not be allowed. One of these Sensitive Locations included "any place of worship".³ N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(c). The Sensitive Locations restriction exempts law enforcement officers, military personnel, and armed security guards. Id. §§ 265.01-e(2)(C) and (3).

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a verified complaint. (Doc. 1 "Compl.") Goldstein "is a U.S. citizen who resides in Kings County in the State of New York." (Compl. ¶ 5.) "Goldstein is the president of Congregation Bnei Matisyahu . . . a modern orthodox Jewish congregation that is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York." (Id. ¶ 6.) Ornstein "is a U.S. citizen who resides in Rockland County in the State of New York." (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs, who are Jewish, claim to have carried handguns for self-defense at shul⁴ prior to the enactment of the CCIA. (Ornstein Decl. ¶ 2, 5-8; Goldstein Decl. ¶ 2, 6-7)⁵. They allege that after the enactment of the CCIA, they have (1) decreased their attendance at shul due to their inability to carry a firearm, (Ornstein Decl. ¶ 13; Goldstein Decl. ¶ 21), and (2) "significantly curtail[ed]" their religious practice, (Ornstein Decl. ¶ 19; see Goldstein Decl. ¶ 21). Plaintiffs further allege that the prohibition of concealed carry within places of worship and religious observation "acts as a deterrent for law-abiding people to enter", and makes religious locations more dangerous. (Compl. ¶ 92-93.) On the same day, Goldstein individually and on behalf of the Congregation, and Ornstein filed a motion for TRO and PI enjoining Defendants Governor Hochul, Attorney General James, Commissioner Sewell, Sheriff Falco, District Attorney Gonzalez, and District Attorney Walsh from enforcing the Sensitive Locations restriction, the provision in CCIA designating "any place of worship or religious observation" as a Sensitive Location. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiffs claim that the Sensitive Locations restriction of the CCIA violates their rights under the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the places of worship and religious observation exclusion, alleging that they would suffer immediate and irreparable harm without immediate injunctive relief.

On October 3, 2022, I denied Plaintiffs' request for a TRO because they failed to demonstrate "immediate and irreparable injury sufficient to satisfy the stringent requirements for a temporary restraining order." (Doc. 21 at 1-2.) In the same order, I directed the parties to appear for a show cause hearing on October 28, 2022. (Id. at 6.) County Defendants, City Defendants, and State Defendants filed their response to the Order to Show Cause on October 14, 2022. (Docs. 35, 37, and 38.) On October 18, 2022, Everytown for Gun Safety filed a motion seeking leave to file an amicus brief. (Doc. 41.) I granted leave to file an amicus brief, (Doc. 44), and on October 20, 2022, Amicus Curiae Everytown for Gun Safety filed their brief. (Doc. 46.) On October 28, 2022, I held a show cause hearing, and heard arguments from the parties regarding the appropriateness of a preliminary injunction staying the enforcement of the Sensitive Locations restriction.

On May 3, 2023, an amendment to the CCIA's place of worship provision took effect. New York Laws 2023, ch. 55, Sec. F-1, eff. 5/3/2023. New York Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(c) was amended to prohibit possession of a firearm, rifle, or shotgun in "any place of worship, except for those persons responsible for security at such place of worship." New York Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(c).

II. Analysis

Before proceeding to the merits of this dispute, I first consider the parties' argument on whether the named Defendants are the proper Defendants for this suit, and whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing standing for their various challenges.

"The Constitution confers limited authority on each branch of the Federal Government." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 337, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016). Article III, § 2 limits the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts to "Cases" and "Controversies". U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2....