U.L. v. New York State Assembly

592 F. App'x 40

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: February 5, 2015
• Docket: 14-555-cv
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant U.L. appeals from the judgment of the United Státes District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, /.), dismissing this case on the ground that defendants-appellees enjoy sovereign and legislative immunity. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

U.L., the father of a child enrolled in a Jewish religious school in New York, brings myriad constitutional claims challenging New York’s child-protection laws, which regulate New York public schools.

We review de novo dismissals of claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 181 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir.1997). We agree with the district court that U.L. cannot sue the State of New York, the New York State Assembly, or the New York State Senate because those defendants enjoy sovereign immunity. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Pikulin v. City Univ. of N.Y., 176 F.3d 598, 600 (2d Cir.1999) (per curiam) (articulating test for whether governmental entity is “arm of the state”). The state legislator defendants enjoy immunity for their legislative acts. State Emps. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 88 (2d Cir.2007).

U.L. argues that, even if his claims are barred as presently pleaded, he should be given an opportunity to replead them to avoid the immunity doctrines. We do not think it is necessary to remand for this purpose. 1 Assuming U.L. could successfully plead around the immunity doctrines, his claims would still fail as a matter of law. The challenged child-protection laws, which are unquestionably secular, are equally inapplicable to all private schools, religious and secular. Nothing about them offends the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993).

U.L.’s claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment likewise fail, because the laws neither target a suspect class nor impair the exercise of a fundamental right, and easily pass muster under rational basis review. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996).

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in U.L.’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

1 . Because remand is unnecessary, U.L.’s demand that Judge Griesa be disqualified from any future proceedings is moot.