The new four-judge decision is unanimous, which means every judge to consider the matter has now agreed that the NYC Department of Health overstepped its legal powers. And they’re right, as I explain here at Cato. Earlier here, here, here, etc.
One person who presumably had not expected today’s result is Emily Bazelon at Slate, who has claimed that Judge Milton Tingling’s trial-court decision was somehow a venture into conservative activism. None of the New York appellate judges heard from today give evidence of sharing that view.
3 Comments
“Judicial Activism” is a derogatory phrase applicable to any judicial decision which overrules a legislative or executive decision with which the speaker disagrees.
Bob
Why no court sanctions against the NYC Department of Health and its individual board members… for their “clearly” illegal actions ?
There should be some direct penalty, somewhere.
Otherwise they are free to creatively pursue similar regulatory schemes in the future — doesn’t personally cost the Board of Health members a dime or day in jail… to “experiment” all they want… and see what new “regulations” they can get away with.
We are pleased with the unanimous decision to uphold the lower court’s ruling. Now that there is legal consensus on this issue, we look forward to collaborating with city leaders on solutions that will have a meaningful and lasting impact on the people of New York City.