14-555-cv U.L. v. New York State Assembly



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED**
**ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W**  **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**
**DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN**
**ELECTRONIC DATABASE (**  **WITH THE NOTATION “**  **SUMMARY ORDER ”).**  **A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST** 
**SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 5 th** **day of February, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 7 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 8 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **U.L., individually and as father and** 12 **natural guardian of E.L., an infant** 13 **under the age of 18 years,** 14 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  15 16 **-v.- 14-555-cv** 17 18 **NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY, NEW YORK** 19 **STATE SENATE, SHELDON SILVER, in his** 20 **official capacity as Speaker of the** 21 **New York State Assembly, JEFFREY D.** 22 **KLEIN, in his official capacity as** 23 **President Pro Tempore of the New York** 24 **State Senate, and as Senate** 25 **Independent Democrat Conference** 26 **Leader, DEAN G. SKELOS, in his** 27 **official capacity as President Pro** 28

1**Tempore of the New York State Senate,** 1 **and as Senate Republican Conference** 2 **Leader, STATE OF NEW YORK,** 3 **Defendants-Appellees**

**.** * 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 5 6 **FOR APPELLANT:** ELLIOT B. PASIK, Law Office of 7 Gerald P. Gross, Cedarhurst, New 8 York. 9 10 **FOR APPELLEES:** MARK H. SHAWHAN (Barbara D. 11 Underwood, Anisha Dasgupta, on 12 the brief ), forEric T. 13 Schneiderman, Attorney General 14 of the State of New York, New 15 York, New York. 16 17 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 18 Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, J. ). 19 20 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 21 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 22
**AFFIRMED**

. 23 24 Plaintiff-appellant U.L. appeals from the judgment of 25 the United States District Court for the Southern District 26 of New York (Griesa, J. ), dismissing this case on the ground 27 that defendants-appellees enjoy sovereign and legislative 28 immunity

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 29 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 30 presented for review. 31 32 U.L., the father of a child enrolled in a Jewish 33 religious school in New York, brings myriad constitutional 34 claims challenging New York’s child-protection laws, which 35 regulate New York public schools. 36 37 We review de novo dismissals of claims under Federal 38 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). Jaghory v. 39 N.Y. State Dep’t of Educ. , 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). 40 We agree with the district court that U.L. cannot sue the 41 State of New York, the New York State Assembly, or the New 42

* The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform with the caption above.

2York State Senate because those defendants enjoy sovereign 1 immunity. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman , 465 2 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Pikulin v. City Univ. of N.Y. , 176 F.3d 3 598, 600 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (articulating test for 4 whether governmental entity is “arm of the state”). The 5 state legislator defendants enjoy immunity for their 6 legislative acts. State Emps. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. 7 Rowland , 494 F.3d 71, 88 (2d Cir. 2007). 8 9 U.L. argues that, even if his claims are barred as 10 presently pleaded, he should be given an opportunity to 11 replead them to avoid the immunity doctrines. We do not 12 think it is necessary to remand for this purpose. 1Assuming 13 U.L. could successfully plead around the immunity doctrines, 14 his claims would still fail as a matter of law. The 15 challenged child-protection laws, which are unquestionably 16 secular, are equally inapplicable to all private schools, 17 religious and secular. Nothing about them offends the 18 Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First 19 Amendment. SeeLemon v. Kurtzman , 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 20 (1971); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of 21 Hialeah , 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993). 22 23 U.L.’s claims under the Equal Protection and Due 24 Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment likewise fail, 25 because the laws neither target a suspect class nor impair 26 the exercise of a fundamental right, and easily pass muster 27 under rational basis review. See Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 28 620, 631 (1996). 29 30 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 31 U.L.’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the 32 district court. 33 34 FOR THE COURT: 35 CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 36 37

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

3