Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-18-01587/USCOURTS-ca2-18-01587-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 

---

1 MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the 

2 judgment:

3 I concur in the judgment and join in Sections B(b) and C(b) of the Court’s 

4 opinion, which are all that is necessary to decide this case. I write separately to 

5 note that most of the discussion in the other sections is dicta. That is because (1) 

6 we assume without deciding that NIFA’s action was legislative rather than 

7 administrative, Maj. Op. at 17, and (2) it does not matter what level of deference 

8 should be given to Defendants because the wage freeze was clearly reasonable and 

9 necessary, id. at 30. At bottom, our holding today is a straightforward application 

10 of Buffalo Teachers Federation v. Tobe, 464 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2006), which recognized 

11 that no analysis of “levels of deference” is needed when a wage freeze is 

12 reasonable and necessary. See id. at 370 (“For the purposes of this appeal, we need 

13 not resolve what level of deference to apply. Instead, we will assume that the 

14 lower level of deference applies because . . . the wage freeze is reasonable and 

15 necessary even under the less deferential standard.”). The majority’s musings, 

16 then, about the hallmarks of legislative versus administrative action, Maj. Op. at 

17 12–17; the types of evidence that might show government self-interest, id. at 23–

18 26; and the meaning of “less deference,” id. at 22–23, are all dicta and unnecessary. 

19 Thus, I respectfully decline to join those sections of the majority’s opinion. 

Case 18-1587, Document 219, 05/13/2020, 2838241, Page1 of 1