Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-14-03811/USCOURTS-ca2-14-03811-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

14‐3721‐cv(L)        

Montesa, et al. v. Schwartz, et al.   

1

1 REISS, District Judge, dissenting:

2 The majority holds that Student‐Plaintiffs fail to allege standing to assert

3 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims because they are only indirectly affected by Defendants’

4 alleged Establishment Clause violations.    I respectfully disagree, and would

affirm in part the district court’s decision.1 5   

6 The majority cabins Student‐Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claims to a

7 “direct exposure theory” and, for that reason, addresses “only whether the

8 Student‐Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded a basis demonstrating their direct

9 exposure to the unconstitutional establishment of religion.”   Maj. Op. at 15–16

10 (footnote omitted).    I believe Students‐Plaintiffs’ claims are broader than the

11 majority’s formulation, and that the Establishment Clause does not require

12 “direct exposure” to the unconstitutional establishment of religion.  See Sch. Dist.

13 of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 221 (1963) (“The Establishment Clause,

14 unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct

15 governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which

16 establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce non‐

                                              

1 I agree with the majority that Student‐Plaintiffs cannot establish standing to

challenge real estate transactions that were not consummated or the provision of

a de minimus number of religious books.

Case 14-3811, Document 106, 09/12/2016, 1860326, Page1 of 10
14‐3721‐cv(L)        

Montesa, et al. v. Schwartz, et al.   

2

1 observing individuals or not.”).    At the pleadings stage, I would find that

2 Student‐Plaintiffs adequately allege they are “directly affected by the . . .

3 practices against which their complaints are directed.”  Id. at 224 n.9.

4 Although Student‐Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing standing as a

5 jurisdictional requirement, “standing allegations need not be crafted with precise

6 detail, nor must the plaintiff prove his allegations of injury.”  Baur v. Veneman,

7 352 F.3d 625, 631 (2d Cir. 2003).   Indeed, “general factual allegations of injury

8 resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice[.]”  Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,

9 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).  In determining standing, we must “accept [] all well‐

10 pleaded allegations in the complaint as true [and] draw [] all reasonable

11 inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.”    Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cty., Inc. v.

12 Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm’n, 768 F.3d 183, 191 (2d Cir. 2014) (alterations in

13 original and internal quotation marks omitted) (reversing and remanding district

14 court’s dismissal of claims for lack of standing).

15 The majority concludes that Student‐Plaintiffs fail to allege injuries that are

sufficiently direct for prudential standing. 16    The prudential standing doctrine is

17 “in some tension with [the Supreme Court’s] recent reaffirmation of the principle

18 that a federal court’s obligation to hear and decide cases within its jurisdiction is

Case 14-3811, Document 106, 09/12/2016, 1860326, Page2 of 10
14‐3721‐cv(L)        

Montesa, et al. v. Schwartz, et al.   

3

1 virtually unflagging.”  Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.

2 Ct. 1377, 1386 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).  At the pleadings stage,

3 its requirements are neither stringent nor inflexible.  See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S.

4 83, 99, 101 (1968) (observing that “[s]tanding has been called one of ‘the most

5 amorphous (concepts) in the entire domain of public law[]’” and that “the

6 emphasis in standing problems is on whether the party invoking federal court

7 jurisdiction has ‘a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,’ and whether

8 the dispute touches upon ‘the legal relations of parties having adverse legal

9 interests[]’”) (citation and footnote omitted).    Prudential standing ensures that

10 Student‐Plaintiffs’ claims “fall within the zone of interests to be protected or

11 regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question[,]” a standard

12 that, at least for pleading purposes, is satisfied here.  Valley Forge Christian Coll. v.

13 Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 475 (1982) (internal

14 quotation marks omitted).   

15 “The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious

16 denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.”  Larson v. Valente, 456

17 U.S. 228, 244 (1982).    “Primary among those evils” against which the

18 Establishment Clause guards “have been sponsorship, financial support, and

Case 14-3811, Document 106, 09/12/2016, 1860326, Page3 of 10
14‐3721‐cv(L)        

Montesa, et al. v. Schwartz, et al.   

4

1 active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.”  Comm. for Pub. Educ. &

2 Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 772 (1973) (internal quotation marks

3 omitted).  “It is equally well established, however, that not every [practice] that

4 confers an ‘indirect,’ ‘remote,’ or ‘incidental’ benefit upon religious institutions

5 is, for that reason alone, constitutionally invalid.”   Id. at 771.    For this reason,

Establishment Clause cases are fact sensitive, 6 2 often requiring courts to “sift[]

7 through the details[,]” employ “careful judgment[,]” and draw “fine

8 distinctions[.]”  Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 847‐48

9 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring).   

10 In a close case like this one, we should hesitate to dismiss Student‐

11 Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims based on the application of “[s]ynthesiz[ed]”

12 rules that emphasize narrow categories of “direct exposure[.]”   Maj. Op. at 19.  

13 Establishment Clause jurisprudence does not mandate that rigid approach.  To

14 the contrary, “[b]ecause standing in Establishment Clause cases can be shown in

                                              

2 In Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), the Supreme Court, which

was sharply divided as to the merits, nonetheless unanimously agreed that

whether there is a violation of the Establishment Clause is a “fact‐sensitive”

inquiry.  134 S. Ct. at 1825 (plurality opinion); id. at 1838 (Breyer, J., dissenting)

(“As we all recognize, this is a ‘fact‐sensitive’ case.”); id. at 1851 (Kagan, J.,

dissenting) (“The facts here matter to the constitutional issue; indeed, the

majority itself acknowledges that the requisite inquiry [is] a ‘fact‐sensitive’

one[.]”).

Case 14-3811, Document 106, 09/12/2016, 1860326, Page4 of 10
14‐3721‐cv(L)        

Montesa, et al. v. Schwartz, et al.   

5

1 various ways,” Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 145 (2011),

2 “[i]f an establishment of religion is alleged to cause real injury to particular

3 individuals, the federal courts may adjudicate the matter.”    Id.    “Like other

4 constitutional provisions, the Establishment Clause acquires substance and

5 meaning when explained, elaborated, and enforced in the context of actual

6 disputes.”  Id.   

7 This court’s decision in Altman v. Bedford Central School District, 245 F.3d 49

8 (2d Cir. 2001) imposes no greater burden.    The Altman court explained that

9 “direct exposure to the challenged activity” is only one basis for Establishment

10 Clause standing, which, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not require “‘proof

11 that particular religious freedoms are infringed.’”    Altman, 245 F.3d at 72

12 (quoting Schempp, 374 U.S. at 224 n.9).  As an example of “direct exposure,” the

13 Altman court pointed to “students attending a public school, and their parents,

14 hav[ing] standing to challenge a program of Bible reading in the school because

15 they are ‘directly affected by the laws and practices against which their

16 complaints are directed[.]’”   Id. (quoting Schempp, 374 U.S. at 224 n.9).   In this

17 dicta, the Altman court did not suggest that “direct exposure” required the

18 students to actually be exposed to Bible reading.    Altman thus reflects the

Case 14-3811, Document 106, 09/12/2016, 1860326, Page5 of 10
14‐3721‐cv(L)        

Montesa, et al. v. Schwartz, et al.   

6

1 important distinction that “a violation of the Free Exercise Clause is predicated

2 on coercion while the Establishment Clause violation need not be so attended.”  

3 Schempp, 374 U.S. at 223.  For this same reason, a plaintiff’s ability to avoid direct

4 exposure is not a defense to an Establishment Clause violation.  See id. at 224‐25

5 (“[T]he fact that individual students may absent themselves [from Bible reading

6 in school] upon parental request[] . . . furnishes no defense to a claim of

7 unconstitutionality under the Establishment Clause.”).

8 As the Altman court further recognized, the Establishment Clause does not

9 require personal confrontation with, or constraint by, religious tenets, practices,

10 or expressions; it requires only some “direct injury” as opposed to an

11 “indefinite” injury indistinguishable from that suffered by the public at large:

12 “[t]he party who invokes the power must be able to show, not only that the

13 [practice] is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of

14 sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he

15 suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.”

16 Altman, 245 F.3d at 72 (quoting Doremus v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Hawthorne,

17 342 U.S. 429, 434 (1952)) (emphasis supplied).  

Case 14-3811, Document 106, 09/12/2016, 1860326, Page6 of 10
14‐3721‐cv(L)        

Montesa, et al. v. Schwartz, et al.   

7

1 In this case, each Student‐Plaintiff attends one of the District’s public

2 schools.  Collectively, they challenge Defendants’ alleged systematic diversion of

3 state and local taxes, federal funds, and grant monies in order to finance special

4 education at Yeshivas.    They identify the educational programs and resources

5 formerly provided at their schools which are now unfunded, explain how they

are entitled to have the diverted funds spent on their educations,3 6 and claim

7 Defendants’ alleged diversion of resources deprives them of their “right to a

8 sound basic education by the laws and policies of the federal government and

9 the State of New York.”  Joint App’x at 1072.  Student‐Plaintiffs allege they can

10 demonstrate through budgetary records and academic test scores a direct causal

11 link between Defendants’ alleged diversion of District funds and the academic

12 harm they suffer.  Accepting these allegations as true and drawing all reasonable

                                              

3 Although the majority correctly points out “there is no free‐standing federal

constitutional right to a public education that entitles the Student‐Plaintiffs to a

minimum level of educational services[,]” Maj. Op. at 25 n.15, the New York

Constitution provides that the New York Legislature “shall provide for the

maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the

children of [that] state may be educated.”  N.Y. Const. art. XI, § 1; see also Bd. of

Educ., Levittown Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Nyquist, 439 N.E.2d 359, 369 (N.Y. 1982)

(interpreting the New York Constitution to require provision of “a sound basic

education”).    In any event, an Establishment Clause claim does not require

Student‐Plaintiffs to establish that the violation deprived them of a free‐standing

federal constitutional right.

Case 14-3811, Document 106, 09/12/2016, 1860326, Page7 of 10
14‐3721‐cv(L)        

Montesa, et al. v. Schwartz, et al.   

8

1 inferences in Student‐Plaintiffs’ favor, at the pleading stage, their causation

2 allegations are not implausible.    See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 222 (1982)

3 (recognizing that the deprivation of an education exerts an “inestimable toll . . .

4 on the social economic, intellectual, and psychological well‐being of the

5 individual”).   

6 In characterizing Student‐Plaintiffs’ injuries as “too far removed, too

7 attenuated, from the alleged unconstitutional component of the act of funneling

8 public monies to support the advancement of Orthodox Hasidic Jewish

9 schools[,]” Maj. Op. at 22–23, the majority ignores the fact that the Student‐

10 Plaintiffs’ educational harm arises directly out of the allegedly unconstitutional

11 acts, the general public, including taxpayers, are not suffering this same injury,

12 and Student‐Plaintiffs could not assert Establishment Clause claims if the District

13 diverted the same funds for a secular purpose.   As a result, Student‐Plaintiffs’

14 alleged injuries are not “similar to that of any other individual who is affected by

15 the District’s budget, regardless of whether that person is an employee, a

16 student, a vendor, a taxpayer, or a citizen[,]” Maj. Op. at 25, and they do not

17 allege a “generalized grievance[] . . . [that would be] most appropriately

18 addressed in the representative branches.”  Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 475 (internal

Case 14-3811, Document 106, 09/12/2016, 1860326, Page8 of 10
14‐3721‐cv(L)        

Montesa, et al. v. Schwartz, et al.   

9

1 quotation marks omitted).  Moreover, no other class of plaintiffs can assert this

2 same claim or is better situated to assert a deprivation of this same interest.  See

3 Gladstone, Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99‐100 (1979) (noting that

4 “under the prudential principles[,] . . . the judiciary seeks to avoid deciding

5 questions of broad social import where no individual rights would be vindicated

6 and to limit access to the federal courts to those litigants best suited to assert a

7 particular claim”).   

8 Although the majority points out that the Student‐Plaintiffs fail to cite

9 precedent authorizing their Establishment Clause claim, it is equally true that

10 there is no precedent prohibiting it.   Accordingly, “[r]ather than attempting to

11 define the outer limits” of the Establishment Clause “on the basis of the present

12 record, the Court’s opinion [should] wisely permit[ ] the parties . . . to create a

13 factual record that will inform that decision.”  United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S.

14 151, 160 (2006) (Stevens, J., concurring) (footnote omitted); see also Rosenberger,

15 515 U.S. at 838‐39 (“If there is to be assurance that the Establishment Clause

16 retains its force in guarding against those governmental actions it was intended

17 to prohibit, we must in each case inquire first into the purpose and object of the

18 governmental action in question and then into the practical details of the

Case 14-3811, Document 106, 09/12/2016, 1860326, Page9 of 10
14‐3721‐cv(L)        

Montesa, et al. v. Schwartz, et al.   

10

1 program’s operation.”).  “Tenuous theories of liability are better assayed in the

2 light of actual facts than in pleader’s supposition.”  Adato v. Kagan, 599 F.2d 1111,

3 1117 (2d Cir. 1979); see also Braden v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 477 F.2d 1, 4‐5 (3d Cir.

4 1973) (“It would perhaps be possible for us to decide this last issue on the present

5 record but we think we should not do so.    Very important constitutional

6 questions are presented and the Supreme Court has repeatedly informed us that

7 such difficult issues should not be decided except upon a full record and after

8 adequate hearing.”) (collecting Supreme Court cases).  

9 For the reasons set forth above, I would affirm in part the district court’s

10 conclusion that Student‐Plaintiffs have adequately alleged standing at the

pleadings stage, and I would defer a determination of qualified immunity.4 11   

12

                                              

4 See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 317 (1995) (observing that “an interlocutory

appeal concerning [the factual basis for qualified immunity] in a sense makes

unwise use of appellate courts’ time, by forcing them to decide in the context of a

less developed record, an issue very similar to one they may well decide anyway

later, on a record that will permit a better decision” and concluding that “we are

persuaded that [i]mmunity appeals . . . interfere less with the final judgment rule

if they [are] limited to cases presenting neat abstract issues of law”) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

Case 14-3811, Document 106, 09/12/2016, 1860326, Page10 of 10