New York Law School’s Digital Commons@NYLS

April 15, 2024https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/international_law_events_flyers/1003/thumbnail.jp

Center for International Law

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Center for International Law Event Posters 
4-15-2024 
Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition Recruitment 
Meeting 
Center for International Law 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/international_law_events_flyers 
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
Since 1891
Jessup International Law 
Moot Court Competition 
Recruitment Meeting
The Philip C. Jessup International 
Law Moot Court Competition 
is the world’s largest moot 
court competition. New 
York Law School has 
long participated in this 
prestigious international 
competition. 
Current 1L and 2L day 
students will be eligible to 
participate on the 2024–25 
team. Students do not need to 
be a member of the Moot Court 
Association to join. Come and 
learn more about joining the NYLS 
Jessup team.
Monday, April 15, 2024
12:45 p.m.–1:45 p.m.
Lunch will be provided to those who register.
WA10
RSVP at www.nyls.edu/CILrsvp
Coach: Distinguished Adjunct Professor Barry Appleton


English

Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition Recruitment Meeting

September 12, 2024https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/student_organizations/1005/thumbnail.jp

New York Law School

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Student Organizations Event Posters 
9-12-2024 
Student Organization Fair and Office Spotlight 
New York Law School 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/student_organizations 
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
Since 1891
Student Organization Fair 
and Office Spotlight
Don’t miss the annual NYLS Student Organization Fair and Office 
Spotlight! This event is the perfect opportunity to learn more about how 
you can participate in NYLS’s many student organizations and to speak 
with representatives from NYLS Offices and Centers about how to get 
involved with academic centers, clinics, programs, and more.
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 
Time: 12:00 p.m.–2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.
Location: Second Floor Events Center and Commons


Student Organization Fair and Office Spotlight

Wice, Jeffrey M.

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute 
10-14-2024 
October 14 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
 
 
 
 
 
N.Y. ELECTIONS, CENSUS & REDISTRICTING UPDATE 
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT LITIGATION 
 
Orange County: Clarke et al. v. Town of Newburgh 
 
In January, three Black and three Hispanic residents of Newburgh filed this lawsuit, 
claiming the town’s at-large election system for Town Board elections has prevented 
Black and Hispanic residents from electing candidates of their choice, thus violating 
the N.Y. Voting Rights Act.  
 
On October 10th, the plaintiffs submitted a memorandum of law in opposition to the 
town’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs included four main arguments.  
First, that the defendants, the Town of Newburgh and the Town Board of Newburgh, 
lack capacity to challenge the facial constitutionality of the NYVRA. Second, that the 
NYVRA is constitutional.  
 
Third, the plaintiffs argue that the amendments to Town Law § 80, which the 
defendants are currently challenging as unconstitutional in a separate action, do not 
moot this case. Lastly, that there is “extensive unrebutted evidence that a reasonable 
alternative election system would improve Black and Hispanic voters’ electoral 
influence relative to the existing system.” 
 
On October 10th, the plaintiffs submitted a “statement of material facts as to which 
there are no genuine issues to be tried” in support of the motion. The statement 
included 118 separate statements on numerous overarching topics, such as the 
pattern of racially polarized voting in Newburgh, the availability of alternative 
electoral systems, and the town’s responsiveness to the needs of the Black or 
Hispanic community. 
 
On October 11th, attorneys for the ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of Northern 
California, and Campaign Legal Center submitted a memorandum for leave to 
participate as amici curiae (friend of the court) in opposition to the defendants’ 
motion for summary judgment. Amici curiae are individuals or organizations that are 
not parties to a legal action, but are permitted by the court to offer information, 
expertise, or insight that has bearing on the issues within the case.  
 
The memo argues that the NYVRA’s judicial construction is a “question of important 
public interest with ramifications far beyond this individual case.” Further, this case 
has “significant implications” for New York residents whose voting rights are 
protected by the NYVRA, as well as voters across the U.S. whose rights are 
protected by similar state voting rights acts. As a result, the organizations state that 
their expertise in the area of voting rights would be of assistance to the court in this 
matter. 
 
Lastly, on October 11th, the judge signed an order for the parties to show cause on 
why an order should not be ordered granting the proposed amici leave to file the 
 
 
proposed amici brief on October 16th. Answering papers must be filed no later than 
October 15th.   
 
Erie County: Young v. Town of Cheektowaga 
 
In March, a prior Town Board candidate Kenneth Young filed a lawsuit against the 
Town of Cheektowaga, alleging racially polarized voting and violations of the New 
York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) in the Cheektowaga Town Board elections. Young 
claims that minorities cannot elect candidates of their choice under the town’s current 
at-large voting method and should adopt a ward voting system. 
 
On October 7th, Young filed a response to the town’s statement of undisputed 
material facts. In this response, Young’s counsel argues that the Town’s statement of 
material facts only cites an “inadmissible unsworn expert report of Defendant” and a 
“Brieformation” of the Town’s attorney, which Young’s counsel further argues 
“improperly relies” on the unsworn expert report. Young also responded separately to 
twenty-three statements made by the defendant, often arguing that the Town has not 
provided evidence in admissible form for the statements that were made. 
 
Also on October 7th, Young submitted a memorandum (“memo”) of law in further 
support of his motion for partial summary judgment and in opposition to the Town’s 
cross-motion for summary judgment. This memo includes four arguments. First, 
Young argues that neither denial nor continuance of Young’s motion is warranted by 
demonstrated need for any pending discovery. Second, that no material issues of 
facts prevent the relief requested by Young in his motion. Third, Young argues that 
the town lacks capacity to challenge the constitutionality of the NYVRA on behalf of 
itself or its residents. Lastly, he argues that the NYVRA is not unconstitutional.  
 
Young’s counsel, Gary Borek submitted an affirmation in further support of Young’s 
motion. Borek offered this affirmation principally to identify documents that are 
material to the pending motions and referenced in Young’s memorandum of law. 
This affirmation included sixteen exhibits, including a Buffalo News article from 
August and the plaintiff’s and defendant’s proposed ward maps. 
 
On October 2nd, an affirmation was submitted by Bennet J. Moskowitz, a counsel for 
Nassau County and the Town of Newburgh in separate actions under the NYVRA, in 
support of the proposed amici of Nassau County, the Town of Newburgh, and the 
Town of Mount Pleasant’s motion for leave to file amici brief in response to the New 
York Attorney General’s memorandum. These parties seek to respond to the 
memorandum together because the attorney general’s position affects all of these 
cases. 
 
On October 9th, the judge signed an order to show cause related to Moskowitz’s 
affirmation, the proposed amici brief, and all prior pleadings. Young and the town will 
have to appear before the court on October 23rd. Any opposition papers must be 
served on amici’s counsel on or before October 18th. Reply papers must be 
submitted on or before October 22nd. 
 
 
 
 
 
ELECTION LAW 
 
Onondaga County: Even Year Election Law Struck Down 
An Onondaga County state supreme court judge denied the New York attorney 
general’s motion to dismiss the case and struck down the Even Year Election Law as 
unconstitutional. 
 
Onondaga County, along with the Onondaga County Legislature and County 
Executive J. Ryan McMahon, filed a lawsuit against the state, Governor Kathy 
Hochul, and local election officials challenging the Even Year Election Law, which 
requires that local governments conduct certain elections in even-numbered years. 
Specifically, this means that elections for county executives, county legislators, town 
supervisors, and town elected officials would occur in even years, which is when 
state and federal elections are held. The goal was to create a consistent schedule for 
elections in order to enhance voter participation and alleviate fatigue among those 
who struggle to take time off work or travel to polling places each year. 
 
Onondaga County contended that this law infringed on Article IV of the State 
Constitution, which grants local governments the power to manage all facets of 
county governance, including the scheduling of elections for local officials. The 
county argues that the state legislature overstepped constitutional bounds as 
outlined in Article IX. Additionally, seven other counties—Oneida, Nassau, 
Rensselaer, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, and Suffolk—have initiated similar legal 
actions, which were consolidated in the Onondaga County challenge. In August, the 
state attorney general filed a motion to dismiss the case, and the court heard oral 
arguments on September 17th. 
 
In a ruling by Judge Gerald Neri, the court rejected the attorney general's request to 
dismiss the case and declared the Even Year Election Law unconstitutional. As a 
result, New York counties are permitted to conduct local elections in odd-numbered 
years. 
 
Here, the court held that the law is unconstitutional and prohibits enforcement of the 
Even Year Election Law. Under Article IX of the New York State Constitution, states 
can only interfere with existing county charters when it is a matter of state concern 
and local elections do not rise to the level of state concern for the state to be able to 
enact or enforce this law. Judge Neri did not accept the argument that the law was to 
help boost turnout and reduce voter fatigue. The law does not apply to all elections, 
exempting races for “sheriff, county clerk, district attorney, family court judge, county 
court judge, surrogate court judge, or any offices with a three-year term prior to 
January first, two thousand twenty-five,” which makes it more confusing for voters. 
Additionally, half of the state would be exempt from the change, asked if “urbane 
voters of New York City less likely to be confused by odd year elections than the 
rubes living in Upstate and Long Island.” While New York argued that voter turnout 
has been higher during recent presidential and gubernatorial elections, Judge Neri 
believed that voter education plays a greater role in turnout than timing when it came 
to those statistics. As such, the law was held as unconstitutional, and counties may 
hold elections for local offices during odd years. 
 
 
 
An appeal is expected. 
 
NYPIRG Identifies 20 Colleges with Large Student 
Populations and No Polling Places 
 
(via NYPIRG) “NYPIRG… released an analysis of general election polling site data 
from the State Board of Elections showing 20 four-year colleges with 1,000 or more 
full time students and on campus housing do not have a polling place within a mile of 
campus. 
 
In 2022, New York initiated an important new program to help young adults attending 
college to more easily vote. The law stated that campuses that have 300 registered 
voters or more living on campus and registered at their college address should have 
a polling place. Given the size of the student population at the 20 schools NYPIRG 
identified and the usual requirement that first and second year students live at an on-
campus address, it is reasonable to assume that each should have been eligible for 
a polling site.  
 
A coalition of civic and youth voting groups called on the Board of Elections to justify 
why those schools did not qualify for a polling place under the 2022 law. The 
coalition formally requested communications and documents from the State Board to 
shed light on the decision-making process that led to the placement of poll sites.” 
 
AROUND THE NATION 
 
GOP Challenges American Overseas Election Ballots 
 
A group of Republican Congressmembers from Pennsylvania filed a federal lawsuit 
looking for better scrutiny of votes case by U.S. citizen voters living abroad (including 
military voters). In Pennsylvania, election officials are not required to verify the 
identity or eligibility of voters registered overseas. The Congressmembers want their 
ballots set aside until their eligibility is verified. 
 
FLORIDA: On Wednesday, a federal judge denied a request from voting rights 
groups to reopen Florida’s voter registration due to the effects of Hurricanes Helene 
and Milton. The original deadline to register was last Monday.  
 
The Florida State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of 
Florida filed a lawsuit and emergency motion on Wednesday to ask the court to 
reopen the state’s voter registration for a minimum of ten additional days. This 
lawsuit comes after Governor DeSantis refused to extend the deadline.  
 
In the decision, the federal judge stated that if individuals were evacuating due to 
Hurricane Milton, they still could have registered online while doing so, as the form 
only takes roughly ten minutes to complete.  
 
VIRGINIA: On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Virginia 
election officials accusing Virginia of violating federal law via Governor 
Glenn Youngkin’s executive order, which was issued in early August.  
 
 
 
The executive order, which was issued less than ninety days before the general 
election, requires daily updates to remove ineligible voters from voting lists. This 
process includes removing people who are “unable to verify that they are citizens” to 
the state’s DMV from the statewide voter registration list. The Justice Department 
alleges that the DMV data can often be outdated or inaccurate, but officials have not 
been taking any additional steps to verify a person’s alleged non-citizen status prior 
to canceling their voter eligibility.   
 
The National Registration Act requires a ninety-day “quiet period” for the 
maintenance of voter rolls ahead of elections. In the lawsuit, the Justice Department 
states that this provision reduces the risk that “errors in maintaining registration lists 
will disenfranchise eligible voters by ensuring that they have enough time to address 
errors before the election.” 
 
A similar lawsuit was also filed against the state last week by immigrants-rights 
groups and the League of Women Voters. 
 
WEST VIRGINIA: In the state legislature, five West Virginia Republican officials 
introduced House Resolution 203, which urges the state not to recognize an 
“illegitimate presidential election.” The proposal outlined conditions in which an 
election should be deemed “illegitimate,” such as in situations when the attorney 
general or secretary of state “determine that election fraud in any state was a major 
reason that resulted in a candidate for President obtaining a majority in the Electoral 
College.” All statewide offices and the West Virginia Legislature are currently 
controlled by Republicans.  
 
House Resolution 203 also stated that “West Virginia will not recognize any election 
of the Democrat candidate for President during the 2024 election cycle if the 
Republican presidential or vice-presidential candidate is assassinated, seriously 
injured during an assassination attempt, incarcerated, de facto eliminated or barred 
from the ballot in any states.” 
 
This resolution prompted some Democratic delegates to introduce House Resolution 
204, which requested that the Legislature “facilitate and promote respect for our 
democracy and government institutions and encourage acceptance of the results of 
our free and fair elections regardless of who prevails.” 
 
House Resolutions 203 and 204 were referred to the judiciary committee and there 
has been no action on either resolution.  
 
 
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants 
from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund, the 
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the New York City Council. This report was 
prepared by Jeff Wice with Jordan Karpoff & Alexis Marking. 
 


October 14 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

March 23, 2024https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/student_organizations/1010/thumbnail.jp

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Student Organizations Event Posters 
3-23-2024 
Sports Law Society | 2024 Field Day 
New York Law School 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/student_organizations 
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
Since 1891
2024 
FIELD 
DAY
Saturday, March 23, 2024
10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m.
John V. Lindsay East River Park Track 
1234 East 6th Street, New York, NY 10009
RSVP: www.nyls.edu/FieldDay
SPORTS LAW SOCIETY
Cost: $19.98 
Includes a t-shirt and refreshments 
for one participant
Join us for fun games 
such as kickball and 
Capture the Flag!
All participants must 
register to participate. 


Sports Law Society | 2024 Field Day

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute 
10-28-2024 
October 28 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
New York Law School, jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
Recommended Citation 
Wice, Jeffrey M., "October 28 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update" (2024). Redistricting Roundtable 
Updates. 173. 
https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/173 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute at 
DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Redistricting Roundtable Updates by an authorized 
administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. For more information, please contact camille.broussard@nyls.edu, 
farrah.nagrampa@nyls.edu. 
 
 
 
 
 
N.Y. ELECTIONS, CENSUS & REDISTRICTING UPDATE 
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT LITIGATION 
 
Erie County: Young v. Town of Cheektowaga 
 
In March, one-time Town Board candidate Kenneth Young filed a lawsuit against the 
Town of Cheektowaga, alleging racially polarized voting and violations of the New 
York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) in the Cheektowaga Town Board elections. Young 
claims that minority voters cannot elect candidates of their choice under the town’s 
current at-large voting method and should adopt a ward voting system. 
 
On October 22nd, a reply was filed by Nassau County and the Towns of Newburgh 
and Mount Pleasant in support of their motion for leave to file an amici (“friend of 
court”) brief in response to the Attorney General’s September 27th memorandum. 
This memo was filed in opposition to the defendants’ cross-motion for summary 
judgment. Nassau County and the towns of Newburgh and Mount Pleasant are 
defendants in separate actions under the NYVRA and now seek to respond to the 
memo together, as the Attorney General’s position affects all three cases. 
 
On October 25th, the court released an order stating that the amici’s motion for 
amicus curiae relief (to file amici brief with the court regarding this matter) was 
granted. The court further ordered that the amici’s proposed brief and any 
affirmations and exhibits filed in support of the brief shall be deemed filed as of 
October 25th.  
 
Nassau County Legislature: Coads et al. v. Nassau County & 
NY Communities for Change v. Nassau County 
 
These two actions, Coads et al. v. Nassau County and NY Communities for Change 
v. Nassau County, arose from challenges to the 2023 redistricting map for the 
Nassau County Legislature, which went into effect on February 28. These actions 
were joined for discovery. 
 
On October 21st, Nassau County and the Nassau County Legislature filed a notice of 
motion for summary judgment. This motion was filed alongside a statement of 
material facts, an affirmation in support of the motion, twenty-four exhibits, and a 
memorandum of law (“memo”) in support of the motion. The memo addressed Action 
I (Coads et al.) and Action II (NY Communities for Change) separately.  
 
For Action II, the defendants argue that the NYVRA’s district-based provisions are 
unconstitutional. Alternatively, the memo argues the NYVRA claim fails because the 
plaintiffs have presented no evidence that the candidates of choice of minority racial 
groups will “usually be defeated” under Local Law 1 across the county. 
 
 
 
On October 23rd, counsel for the defendants filed a letter with the judge. The letter 
stated that the defendants do not consent to the release of any documents withheld 
as privileged—including for attorneys’-eyes-only review—during the pendency of the 
appellate process and the automatic stay invoked by the appeals. 
 
Orange County: Clarke et al. v. Town of Newburgh 
 
In January, several Black and Hispanic residents of Newburgh filed this lawsuit, 
claiming the town’s at-large election system for Town Board elections has prevented 
Black and Hispanic voters from electing candidates of their choice, thereby violating 
the N.Y. Voting Rights Act.  
 
On October 24th, the plaintiffs filed a memo in opposition to the Town of Newburgh 
and Newburgh Town Board’s motion in limine (pre-trial), which sought to exclude the 
“addendum” of expert Dr. Matt Barreto and any testimony or opinions regarding 
such. The defendants argued that Dr. Barreto’s expert report should be excluded for 
untimeliness. Here, the plaintiffs respond that they disclosed the identity of their 
expert witness in a timely manner. The addendum in question provided additional 
context on a topic that Dr. Barreto had previously addressed. The plaintiffs also 
argue: (1) the defendants must show prejudice to justify the “drastic remedy” of 
preclusion; (2) the defendants have not and cannot show prejudice; and (3) If this 
Court excludes the addendum, there is no justification for precluding Dr. Barreto from 
testifying about reasonable alternative electoral systems at trial. 
 
On October 25th, the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion in limine to 
exclude the addendum and any testimony and/or opinions regarding the same. The 
Town of Newburgh and Newburgh Town Board argued again that the court should 
preclude Dr. Barreto’s untimely expert report. 
 
On October 25th, the court released its decision and denied the defendants’ motion 
in part. Based on this order, the defendants failed to establish “intentional conduct” 
by the plaintiffs that would support preclusion at trial. Moreover, any prejudice can be 
cured by additional time for the Town of Newburgh and Newburgh Town Board to 
rebut the new data. Although the plaintiffs failed to seek leave for this late expert 
disclosure, the court wants to “hear this case fully on its merits and will allow it in.”  
 
As a result, the court granted leave for one or both of the defendants’ designated 
experts for trial to supplement their prior reports with regard to data addressed by 
this Barreto Addendum. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to produce Dr. Barreto 
for a continued deposition as to the addendum only and adjourned the trial of 
October 31st. 
 
ELECTION LAW 
 
Absentee Voting: Court of Appeals Hears Amedure Challenge 
 
On October 15th, the New York Court of Appeals heard arguments from attorneys 
representing the state Republican Party (the plaintiffs) and the Attorney General’s 
office (the defendants). The case focuses on a line added to state Election Law three 
 
 
years ago, which changed how to challenge disputed absentee ballots, including 
mail-in ballots cast during the early voting period. 
 
This case will answer what should happen if the central board of canvassers—which 
includes at least two people and must be equally divided between Democrats and 
Republicans—disagree on the signature or the validity of the ballot. The new law 
now requires the board to count the ballot even when there is a split on its validity. If 
one member believes it is valid while others do not, the new law requires the ballot to 
be counted. Many argue that this presumption of validity is the same presumption 
that applies to in-person voting.  
 
This change in the law was enacted to prevent an election’s results from not being 
finalized for days or weeks due to disagreements over signatures. However, the New 
York State Republican Party filed a lawsuit last year, arguing the law violates the 
New York State Constitution because it requires bipartisan involvement in election 
oversight.  
 
Counsel for the Republican Party argued that this law unconstitutionally allows 
election boards to make “unilateral decisions on the validity of mail-in ballots.” 
Counsel also argued that the law does not allow the courts to adjudicate the issue—
because the ballot is counted and then entered into a pile of anonymized ballots, the 
ballot in question cannot be distinguished from the others. Lastly, counsel stated that 
there is a chance that “political operatives” could flag specific ballots for 
commissioners who could then deem the ballots as valid or invalid based on the 
votes inside. 
 
Court of Appeals Associate Judges Anthony Cannataro and Jenny Rivera 
questioned how this law is partisan if it applies the same to both parties. Judge 
Cannataro asked “even if as you say one commissioner has the upper hand, that 
applies to both commissioners. The person claiming the invalidity has more power, 
no matter what side they’re on in terms of political party.”  
 
The Republicans also argued that the law removes an opportunity for bipartisan 
action. To deal with questionable ballots, Republicans recommended putting them in 
the same bucket of ballots that were determined to be invalid. This way, either party 
could contest the determination in court. Judge Rivera observed that this method 
could “offend the constitution” because the person whose ballot was not counted 
may never be able to challenge that decision in court.  
 
Oral arguments also raised questions regarding how to handle in-person ballots, 
which are presumed to be valid and counted. As asked by Judge Rivera, “If we were 
to decide the presumption of validity fails for mail-in ballots, does that mean the in-
person presumption would also have to fail?” Regarding this issue, counsel for the 
defendants stated, “I fear that might be the next argument, that if this presumption 
doesn’t apply, that could form a basis for a challenge to the in-person procedure.” 
 
New York’s Republican Party won their case in trial court, but an appellate court in 
Albany reversed the decision and reinstated the law in August. The Court of Appeals 
will now decide in the next few weeks.  
 
 
 
Counties Remove Voting Ballot Drop Boxes 
 
After security concerns were raised, Delaware and Schoharie counties both removed 
outdoor ballot drop boxes last week. These boxes are not regulated by state law and 
a bill to regulate their usage is pending in Albany.  
 
CAMPAIGNS 
 
Redistricting Attorney Enters NYC Mayoral Race 
 
Attorney Jim Walden has entered the 2025 race for New York City’s mayor. Walden 
was the plaintiff’s attorney in Nichols v. Hochul, the lawsuit that challenged the State 
Assembly district lines as unconstitutional following the decision in Harkenrider v. 
Hochul, the successful challenge to the state congressional and state senate map 
approved by the legislature. The Nichols case resulted in having the state 
Independent Redistricting Commission and state legislature eventually enact a lawful 
assembly map. 
 
AROUND THE NATION 
 
UTAH: On Thursday, the Utah Supreme Court issued its 53-page opinion regarding 
its decision last month to uphold a district court judge’s decision to invalidate 
Amendment D, which would have given the Utah Legislature the power to repeal or 
alter voter-approved ballot initiatives.  
 
The proposed constitutional amendment, placed on to the November ballot after the 
Legislature called a special session in August, would have “effectively invalidated” 
the court’s recent interpretation of the state constitution. In July, the court ruled that 
the Utah Constitution protects “government reform” initiatives from being overridden 
by lawmakers “without a compelling government interest,” and that the Legislature’s 
power to amend initiatives has its limits.  
 
As stated by the court, the Legislature “has the duty and the obligation to accurately 
communicate the ‘subject matter’ of the proposed amendment to voters and to 
publish the text of the amendment in a newspaper in each county two months before 
the election. It has failed to do both.” The amendment will remain on the ballot to 
ensure Utah can meet its election deadlines, but it will now be considered “void” and 
will be “given no effect.”  
 
Amendment D could be pursued by Utah lawmakers in the future, but that remains 
unclear. This decision clarifies that any “future iteration” of Amendment D must 
contain accurate ballot language that appropriately describes its function and 
purpose. 
 
 
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants 
from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund, the 
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the New York City Council. This report was 
prepared by Jeff Wice & Alexis Marking. 


October 28 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

NYLS faculty, staff, and alumni delivered lunches and encouragement to our July 2024 bar takers. Thank you to those of you who supported our bar takers through the Bar Success Fundhttps://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/photos_nylsstudents/1006/thumbnail.jp

NYLS faculty, staff, and alumni delivered lunches and encouragement to our July 2024 bar takers

Leonard, Arthur S.

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Other Publications Faculty Scholarship 
8-2024 
8th Circuit Panel Vacates Preliminary Injunction Against Iowa 
LGBTQ School Censorship Law 
Arthur S. Leonard 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_other_pubs 
August/September 2024   LGBT Law Notes   15
8th Circuit Panel Vacates Preliminary Injunction Against Iowa 
LGBTQ School Censorship Law
By Arthur S. Leonard
On August 9, a three-judge panel of 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th 
Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction 
issued by the U.S. District Court for 
the Southern District of Iowa, GLBT 
Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force v. 
Reynolds, 2024 WL 3736785. The 
panel, consisting entirely of Republican 
appointees (including two by President 
Donald J. Trump), found that although 
the plaintiffs had standing to challenge 
the constitutionality of the law, the 
district court “entered the injunction 
based on a flawed analysis of the law,” 
and remanded for further proceedings 
“consistent with this opinion” to give 
the district court a second shot at 
deciding the motions for preliminary 
injunction. The author of the opinion, 
Circuit Judge Ralph R. Erickson, and 
Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz, are 
Trump appointees. The third member 
of the panel, Circuit Judge James 
Loken, was appointed by President 
George H.W. Bush.
Senate File 496 was enacted in 
May 2023, addressing three issues. 
One provision, to become effective on 
January 1, 2024, adopted regulations 
regarding books in Iowa’s public 
school libraries, the effective target 
being books that are judged to be “age 
inappropriate” because of their content 
including LGBTQ issues and books 
on other topics generally deemed age-
inappropriate by social conservatives. 
A second provision, to become effective 
on July 1, 2023, bans any “program, 
curriculum test, survey, questionnaire, 
promotion, or instruction relating to 
gender identity or sexual orientation 
to students in kindergarten through 
grade six.” Finally, a third provision, 
which also would take effect on July 1, 
2023, required public school districts 
to notify a child’s parents if the child 
asks for the use of pronouns that do not 
match the school’s registration records 
or otherwise seeks an accommodation 
related to gender identity. Several 
lawsuits were filed attacking Senate 
File 496, focusing on one or more 
of the provisions. Suits challenging 
the library and curricular provisions 
were consolidated by the district court 
to consider motions for preliminary 
relief. The district court found that 
those provisions were likely to be held 
unconstitutional, and preliminarily 
enjoined them from being enforced. 
Evidence presented to the district 
court on behalf of a transgender member 
of one of the plaintiff groups showed 
that her school district had reacted 
to File 496 by prohibiting students in 
sixth grade and below from attending 
meetings of her elementary school’s 
Genders & Sexualities Alliance Club 
(GSA). The state defendants contested 
the plaintiffs’ assertion that this action 
by the school district was caused by File 
496, but the school district invoked that 
law in announcing the action. The court 
of appeals opinion says that for purposes 
of standing, it is enough that the district 
announced they were barring the trans 
plaintiff from attending because of File 
496, even if they were misinterpreting 
it. 
One part of the opinion focused 
on whether the plaintiff groups had 
standing to challenge the library and 
curricular provisions, an issue that the 
district court resolved in their favor. 
The 8th Circuit panel agreed that 
these plaintiff groups had standing, 
rejecting the defendants’ argument that 
the library provisions were immune 
from challenge under the doctrine of 
“government speech.” The court found 
Supreme Court precedent supporting 
the argument that book selection and 
removal decisions could be challenged 
on First Amendment grounds. 
Similarly, the student group (first named 
organization of the plaintiffs in the 
case’s caption) could assert a freedom 
of association challenge to the school 
district action restricting attendance at 
GSA meetings.
Where the district court erred, 
according to the panel, was in not 
performing an inquiry that the court said 
was required under the Supreme Court’s 
decision in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 
144 S.Ct. 2383 (2024) and subsequent 
rulings, analyzing facial challenges of 
laws on First Amendment issues. “In 
the First Amendment context, . . . ‘a 
law may be invalidated as overbroad if 
a substantial number of its applications 
are unconstitutional, judged in relation 
to the statue’s plainly legitimate 
sweep,’” quoting from Americans for 
Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 
U.S. 595 (2021). The 8th Circuit has 
commented in the past that invalidating 
a law on this basis should only be done 
as a “last resort”, since facial challenges 
involve a heightened risk of premature 
interpretation of a statute based on a 
barebones record” when it is done in 
the context of a preliminary injunction 
seeking to block a law from going 
into effect. According to the panel 
opinion, the district court failed to 
analyze whether File 496’s application 
to book selection and removal would 
lead to “substantial” unconstitutional 
applications compared to those that 
are constitutionally permissible. 
Instead, asserted the panel opinion, the 
district court just picked out individual 
examples of potential unconstitutional 
applications from the record without 
analyzing whether they were substantial 
in light of potential constitutional 
applications, and remanded for the 
trial court to perform such an analysis. 
Meanwhile, the preliminary injunction 
is vacated, and these provisions can be 
enforced pending trial on the merits. 
The opinion is prefaced by a list 
of counsel from all the consolidated 
actions which is too long to repeat here. 
It lists individual attorneys without 
specifying which organizations they 
might be associated with. Several 
amicus briefs were submitted on behalf 
of the appellees (plaintiffs below). ■


8th Circuit Panel Vacates Preliminary Injunction Against Iowa LGBTQ School Censorship Law

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Other Publications Faculty Scholarship 
8-2024 
11th Circuit Panel Stays Injunction Against Florida Law on 
Gender-Affirming Care and Orders Expedited Hearing on State’s 
Appeal 
Arthur S. Leonard 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_other_pubs 
August/September 2024   LGBT Law Notes   1
11th Circuit Panel Stays Injunction Against Florida Law on 
Gender-Affirming Care and Orders Expedited Hearing on 
State’s Appeal
By Arthur S. Leonard
In Doe v. Ladapo, 2024 WL 
2947123, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 
105334 (N.D. Fla., June 11, 2024), U.S 
District Judge Robert Hinkle found that 
a law prohibiting “sex-reassignment” 
prescriptions and procedures for minors 
and imposing burdensome regulations 
on “sex-reassignment” procedures for 
adults, which was enacted in May 2023, 
and the rules subsequently promulgated 
by the Florida Boards of Medicine 
and Osteopathic Medicine (“Medical 
Boards”) to effectuate the law, both 
violate the Equal Protection Clause 
of the 14th Amendment. Judge Hinkle 
enjoined its enforcement. The law had 
never gone into effect, as Judge Hinkle 
had granted a preliminary injunction 
before its effective date. The state filed 
an immediate appeal and a request for 
a stay of the injunction. On August 26, 
a three-judge panel granted the request 
for a stay pending a decision on appeal 
in Doe v. Surgeon General, State of 
Florida, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21601, 
and directed the clerk’s office to “set an 
expedited briefing schedule and to place 
this appeal on the next available oral 
argument calendar.”
The statute was among the earliest 
of the wave of state laws (now enacted 
in a majority of states) prohibiting 
the prescription of puberty blocker 
and cross-sex hormones or surgical 
alteration as treatment for gender 
dysphoria for persons under age 18. The 
law allows continued gender-affirming 
care for minors who had already begun 
the process with puberty blockers 
and/or cross-sex hormones as of its 
effective date, and does not prohibit 
such treatment for adults.  Prescription 
and administration, whether for minors 
or adults, however, must be done only 
“by a physician” after the patient or 
the patient’s guardian signs a written 
consent while in “the same room” as the 
physician. 
Two minors who hoped to begin 
treatment and one adult sued on 
behalf of a class of transgender minors 
and adults, seeking to enjoin the 
provisions of the law and the Medical 
Boards’ rules, claiming a violation 
of the Equal Protection Clause of 
the 14th Amendment. The essence of 
their constitutional claim is that the 
prohibited treatments are allowed for 
gender-affirming care without special 
administrative rules for individuals who 
are not transgender (that is, individuals 
seeking treatment to affirm their gender 
as identified at birth), regardless of the 
individual’s age, but such treatments 
are denied for those who seek care to 
affirm a gender identity other than the 
one identified for them at birth, with 
accompanying administrative rules 
for a transgender adult. The Plaintiffs 
claim that this differential treatment is 
not sufficiently justified by the record 
compiled in the lengthy bench trial 
conducted by District Judge Hinkle. 
Ultimately, however, Judge Hinkle 
based his conclusion on evidence in 
the record that the prohibitions and 
restrictions in the challenged statute 
were motivated by legislative animus 
rather than by the evidentiary record 
before the legislature. Although a prior 
ruling by the 11th Circuit in Eknes-
Tucker v. Governor of Alabama, 80 
F.4th 1205 (11th Cir. 2023), precluded 
Judge Hinkle from applying strict 
scrutiny or heightened scrutiny to 
the statute, he found that under the 
rationality test—which applies to all 
potentially discriminatory legislation–a 
measure motivated by animus without 
factual support could be enjoined. 
As to the implementing rules, Judge 
Hinkle subjected them to heightened 
scrutiny and found that they were not 
substantially related to a sufficiently 
important legitimate state interest, and 
thus did not survive judicial review. 
Judge Hinkle characterized this as a 
“close case,” but he determined that 
the tests used to determine whether to 
grant injunctive relief were nevertheless 
satisfied.
The majority of the panel disagreed 
with Judge Hinkle on major points, 
arguably avoiding many of the subtleties 
of his lengthy opinion (more than 
100 pages), in a decision peppered 
with over-generalized assertions and 
mischaracterizations of the record. 
Perhaps not surprisingly, the two judges 
in the majority—Britt Grant and Robert 
J. Luck—were appointed byDonald J. 
Trump:, and issued their opinion as 
“By the Court” rather than under an 
individual name. The dissenting judge, 
Charles R. Wilson, was appointed by 
President Bill Clinton.
The panel majority stated two reasons 
for its conclusion that “defendants have 
made a strong showing that they are 
likely to succeed on the merits.” First, 
they noted that there is a presumption 
that the legislature “acted in good faith 
when it concluded that the prohibition 
and regulations provisions, and the 
implementing rules, were not based 
on invidious discrimination.” The 
court concluded that although Judge 
Hinkle recognized the presumption, he 
had “misapplied it” by relying on the 
remarks of individual members of the 
legislature, which were not necessarily 
representative of the entire body. The 
panel majority noted that Hinkle’s 
method resembled the “mix-motive” 
approach used in Title VII cases, which, 
they stated, was not appropriate to a 
constitutional case. And they contrasted 
the Supreme Court precedents upon 
which Hinkle relied, stating that 
in those cases, there had been “no 
legitimate interest at all [that] supported 
the legislative action.”
By contrast, the majority said, 
there was evidence in the record that 
2   LGBT Law Notes   August/September 2024
many legislators deemed the measures 
appropriate in light of concerns, 
presumed to be legitimate and asserted 
in good faith, about protecting minors 
from “irreversible health risks” and 
further notedthat Judge Hinkle himself 
had characterized this a “close case.” 
The majority also disagreed with Judge 
Hinkle’s conclusions regarding all of 
the other equitable-relief factors. It also 
noted that the law was not an absolute 
ban, insofar as it allowed physicians to 
continue prescribing for minors who 
had already begun treatment and for 
adults , which “lessens the harm to those 
minors who wish to continue receiving 
treatment.” And the majority echoed 
Judge Hinkle’s statement that there 
were “legitimate concerns” about some 
of the side effects of treatment, as well 
as a “risk of misdiagnosis.” The panel 
decided that the state had “satisfied 
its burden” with respect to the “public 
interest test.,” the fourth factor in the 
equitable analysis. 
In dissent, Judge Wilson emphasized 
the breadth and depth of Judge Hinkle’s 
decision and reitereated that in reviewing 
a  decision to grant equitable relief, the 
focus should be on whether the court 
“abused its discretion in granting the 
injunction,” and not the review court’s 
own analysis of the claims. He raised the 
“clear error rule” for reviewing awards 
of injunctive relief, and concluded that 
Judge Hinkle had neither “misapplied” 
the presumption of legislative good faith, 
nor misapplied “intermediate scrutiny” 
in evaluating the provisions and rules 
at issue. Judge Wilson agreed with 
Judge Hinkle that the record contained 
sufficient evidence of animus to justify 
his decision, pointing to “remarks 
made by legislators and high-ranking 
members of Florida’s administration.” 
(What nobody would say out loud, of 
course, was that passing this law was 
part of constructing the legislative 
record in support of Governor Ron 
DeSantis’s ill-fated campaign for the 
Republican presidential nomination.) To 
Judge Wilson, Judge Hinkle’s opinion 
“reads as recognizing animus as the 
driving factor for the bill’s consideration 
at all.” Likewise, Judge Wilson rejected 
the majority analysis of the burden of 
proof issues. He noted the particular 
criticism of how the medical boards 
had mischaracterized evidence in order 
to justify the rules they promulgated, 
pointing to “clear evidence in the record 
that the Florida Boards of Medicine, 
in establishing new standards of care 
for gender-affirming treatment, shared 
untrue and misleading information with 
patients.”
“On balance,” wrote Judge Wilson, 
“evidence in the record demonstrates 
that the plaintiffs and class members 
would suffer if the stay were granted – 
withholding access to gender-affirming 
care would cause needless suffering. 
In contrast, denying the stay would 
support a ruling grounded in the public 
interest. This matter is a medical issue, 
where patients are best left to make 
decisions alongside health professionals, 
with access to complete, unbiased 
information, as needed.”
The dissent also disagreed with 
the majority’s handling of precedent, 
highlighting distinctions between the 
Florida and Alabama laws and also noting 
prior 11th Circuit precedent applying 
heightened scrutiny to enactments 
based on “gender stereotypes.” As 
to Judge Hinkle’s comment that “the 
issue is close,” Judge Wilson wrote that 
“the issue being close is not enough 
to warrant granting the stay and 
minimizing the thorough and careful 
analysis the district court engaged in. 
The district court appropriately credited 
argument on both sides of the case, and 
found that on balance, the plaintiffs 
should prevail. We should defer to such 
thoughtful decision-making.” Indeed, 
the majority dispatched Judge Hinkle’s 
detailed opinion, which ran more than 
one hundred pages, in only nine pages.
The plaintiffs are represented by 
attorneys from Southern Legal Counsel, 
Inc., the National Center for Lesbian 
Rights, Sidley Austin LLP, Human 
Rights Campaign Foundation, GLAD, 
and Lowenstein Sandler PC. Counsel 
indicated that they were exploring their 
options for seeking to have the stay 
overturned, although the panel majority 
may have created an insuperable 
obstacle by designating the case setting 
for an expedited briefing schedule 
and for  oral argument before a merits 
panel on the first available date in the 
court’s argument calendar. The panel 
majority had good reason to push for 
an early hearing date; the 11th Circuit 
is dominated by conservative judges, 
almost half of them appointed by Trump. 
A petition for en banc review of this 
ruling would face a Circuit bench with 
a conservative Republican-appointed 
majority. (As to which, see below the 
discussion of the 11th Circuit’s denial of 
en banc review of the panel decision in 
Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of the State of 
Alabama, 80 F4th 1205 (2023), petition 
for rehearing en banc denied, 2024 WL 
3964753, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21958 
(August 28, 2024).) ■
Arthur Leonard is the Robert F. Wagner 
Professor of Labor & Employment Law 
Emeritus at New York Law School.


11th Circuit Panel Stays Injunction Against Florida Law on Gender-Affirming Care and Orders Expedited Hearing on State’s Appeal

OCTOBER 30, 2024https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/tricario_institute_events_flyers/1014/thumbnail.jp

James Tricarico Jr. Institute for the Business of Law and In-House Counsel

Fireside Chat | Michael R. Manley, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, 1-800-Flowers.com

NOVEMBER 12, 2024https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/tricario_institute_events_flyers/1015/thumbnail.jp