Court Opinion

ID: 9410091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 15:00:54.671168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:55.342230
License: Public Domain

22-2599
Clementine Co. v. Adams

                     United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Second Circuit

                                 August Term 2022

                                Argued: May 17, 2023
                                Decided: July 20, 2023

                                     No. 22-2599

THE CLEMENTINE COMPANY, LLC, DBA THE THEATER CENTER, WEST END ARTISTS
                  COMPANY, DBA THE ACTORS TEMPLE,

                                 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

  PLAYERS THEATER MANAGEMENT CORP., DBA THE PLAYERS THEATER, SOHO
PLAYHOUSE, INC., DBA SOHO PLAYHOUSE, CARAL LTD., DBA BROADWAY COMEDY
                                CLUB,

                                      Plaintiffs,

                                           v.

   ERIC ADAMS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

                                 Defendant-Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of New York
                      No. 21-cv-7779, Colleen McMahon, Judge.
Before:      CALABRESI, LOHIER, and NATHAN, Circuit Judges.

       Plaintiffs-Appellants, who operate small venue theaters in New York City,
brought claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages,
alleging that the City’s Key to NYC program—which required certain indoor
venues to check the COVID-19 vaccination status of patrons and staff before
permitting entry—violated their rights to free speech and equal protection under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Following the expiration of the Key to
NYC program, the district court dismissed as moot Plaintiffs’ claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court also dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim
for nominal damages for lack of standing, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to
plausibly allege an injury in fact. Plaintiffs now appeal from that order. Although
we conclude that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged Article III standing, we affirm
the judgment of dismissal on the alternative ground of failure to state a claim.

      AFFIRMED.

                                       MATTHEW      KEZHAYA,       Crown       Law,
                                       Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
                                       ELINA DRUKER (Richard Dearing, Claude S.
                                       Patton, on the brief), for Hon. Sylvia O.
                                       Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel of the
                                       City of New York, New York, NY, for
                                       Defendant-Appellee.

NATHAN, Circuit Judge:

      Plaintiffs-Appellants The Clementine Company LLC d/b/a The Theater

Center and West End Artists Company d/b/a The Actors Temple appeal from an

order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

(McMahon, J.) dismissing their claims against Eric Adams, the Mayor of the City

of New York, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to

                                          2
allege an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. For the reasons set

forth below, we agree with Plaintiffs that they plausibly allege they have standing

to bring their claims but nevertheless affirm the judgment of dismissal because

Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege a violation of the First or Fourteenth

Amendments.

                                  BACKGROUND

   I.     Factual Background

        On August 3, 2021, the Mayor of the City of New York announced the Key

to NYC program, which provided that proof of vaccination would be mandatory

for patrons and staff at various indoor businesses, including theaters, beginning

on August 17, 2021. Accordingly, entities to which the program applied were

required to check the vaccination status of patrons and staff and to refuse entry to

individuals who could not produce proof of vaccination. Under Key to NYC, a

first violation for failing to check vaccination status would subject a venue to a

$1,000 fine, a second violation to a $2,000 fine, and subsequent violations to a

$5,000 fine, each. A failure to comply with the mandate could have also been

prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor. The executive order announcing the

program explained its purpose was to control effectively the spread of dangerous

                                           3
new COVID-19 variants while allowing New York City to continue its economic

and social recovery from the pandemic by incentivizing as many of the City’s

residents to get vaccinated as possible.       The order noted that “the recent

appearance in the City of the highly transmissible Delta variant of COVID-19 has

substantially increased the risk of infection”; that “the CDC has stated that

vaccination is the most effective tool to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and

protect against severe illness”; that “indoor entertainment, recreation, dining and

fitness settings generally involve groups of unassociated people interacting for a

substantial period of time and requiring vaccination for all individuals in these

areas, including workers, will protect the public health, promote public safety, and

save the lives of not just those vaccinated individuals but the public at large”; and

that “mandating vaccinations at the types of establishments that residents frequent

will incentivize vaccinations, increasing the City’s vaccination rates and saving

lives.” Emergency Exec. Order 225 (Aug. 16, 2021), https://perma.cc/NR8S-PV5Q

(“Exec. Order No. 225”). The order applied to “covered entit[ies],” which it

defined as entities (except for schools, childcare programs, senior centers, and

community centers) that operate “covered premises.”          Id. § 5(b).   “Covered

premises,” in turn, were defined as indoor entertainment and recreational settings,

                                          4
indoor food services, and indoor gyms and fitness settings. Id. § 5(c). These

definitions tracked the order’s focus on establishments frequented by groups of

unassociated people interacting for a substantial period of time, and therefore did

not include a wide variety of indoor settings, including offices, residential

buildings, stores, or churches or other religious institutions.

      Plaintiffs Theater Center and Actors Temple operate small venue theaters

located in Manhattan. On Sunday mornings, the Jerry Orbach Theater, operated

by Plaintiff Theater Center, was rented by a church, which conducted worship

services there. When worship services were in progress, the Jerry Orbach Theater

was not subject to the Key to NYC vaccine requirements because it was not being

used as a “covered premises,” although the same location was subject to the

requirements when it was used as an entertainment venue. Similarly, Plaintiff

Actors Temple, which was ordinarily subject to the Key to NYC requirements

when it was used as a covered premises, at times “also operate[d] as a non-

denominational Jewish synagogue,” and when those worship services were

occurring, the Key to NYC requirements did not apply. App’x 15 ¶ 14.

      Plaintiffs allege that “[m]any guests come to see theatrical productions and

comedy shows from outside of” New York and “struggle[d] to comply with New

                                           5
York’s mandate and to show proof of vaccination.” Id. at 24 ¶ 53. After complying

with the Key to NYC vaccine mandate, Theater Center alleges it was “required to

process multiple refunds at every performance due to the mandate, even though

it post[ed] prominently on its website and all social media posts that customers

need to provide proof of vaccination”; that “[a]t every performance at [its] theaters

since August 17, 2021, there have been angry outbursts from people who are not

allowed to attend because they have either not been vaccinated or because they

have forgotten, cannot find, or cannot display their proof of vaccination”; and that

people have “attempted to sneak into [its] theaters using other people’s vaccine

cards” which “has required [it] to hire more staff to check ID cards, . . . increas[ing]

costs and slow[ing] down the entry process for customers who can provide proof

of vaccination.” Id. ¶¶ 53–56. Specifics about the harms Actors Temple has

suffered are absent from the complaint, though it contains the general allegation

that “[e]nforcing the Key to NYC vaccine mandate has caused financial hardship,

by requiring Plaintiffs to both hire more staff and process refunds for customers

denied entry,” and that turning away unvaccinated customers “engenders ill-will,

subjects Plaintiffs to the risk of a complaint under the New York City Human

                                            6
Rights Law, and makes it less likely that these customers will return after the

restrictions are lifted.” Id. at 25 ¶¶ 57, 59.

   II.      Procedural Background

         Plaintiffs filed their complaint in September 2021, pursuant to 42 U.S.C

§ 1983, claiming that Key to NYC violated their free speech and equal protection

rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought a declaration

that “enforcement of the Key to NYC vaccine mandate against Plaintiffs’ small

venue theater . . . venues as compared to other similar venues violates the freedom

of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments” and the Equal

Protection Clause; injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of Key to NYC as

to them; “nominal damages of one dollar for the unlawful enforcement of the Key

to the NYC vaccine mandate against Plaintiffs”; and costs and attorney’s fees.

App’x 30–31.

         Shortly after filing the complaint, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary

injunction. On December 3, 2021, the district court denied preliminary injunctive

relief, finding both that Plaintiffs likely lacked standing and that they likely failed

to state a claim. See Clementine Co. v. de Blasio, No. 21-cv-7779, 2021 WL 5756398

(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2021). Plaintiffs appealed from that order. On March 7, 2022,

                                             7
however, while that appeal was pending, the City allowed the Key to NYC

requirements to expire. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the appeal of the

preliminary injunction as moot. Clementine Co. v. Adams, No. 21-3070, 2022 WL

4113100 (2d Cir. July 11, 2022).

     In September 2022, the district court dismissed the underlying case as moot

and for lack of standing. Clementine Co. v. Adams, No. 21-cv-7779, 2022 WL 4096162

(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2022). The court reasoned that the expiration of Key to NYC

rendered moot Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and that the

voluntary cessation exception to mootness did not apply. Id. at *2–3. As for the

claim for nominal damages, the court explained that while it might not be moot,

“Plaintiffs have not established the first element of standing—injury.” Id. at *3.

The court held that Plaintiffs “failed to allege . . . an injury-in-fact to themselves—

only to potential audience members.” Id. Plaintiffs timely appealed.

                                   DISCUSSION

      Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims for

lack of standing. The City defends the district court’s standing analysis, but also

argues that the court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims can be affirmed on

the alternative ground of failure to state a claim. For the reasons that follow, we

                                           8
agree with Plaintiffs that they have plausibly alleged Article III standing, but we

also agree with the City that Plaintiffs’ claims must nevertheless be dismissed for

failure to state a claim.

   I.      Standing

        Plaintiffs do not challenge the dismissal of their claims for injunctive and

declaratory relief as moot. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in

holding they lack standing to bring their claim for nominal damages. In light of

recent Supreme Court precedent holding that “a request for nominal damages

satisfies the redressability element of standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based

on a completed violation of a legal right,” Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792,

802 (2021), Plaintiffs’ claim for nominal damages is plainly not moot. But the City

defends the district court’s holding that Plaintiffs failed to plead an injury in fact.

We disagree.

        On appeal, we review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a

complaint for lack of standing. Dubuisson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 887 F.3d 567,

573 (2d Cir. 2018). “[F]or purposes of our threshold jurisdictional analysis” we

must accept “plaintiffs’ allegations as true and assum[e] they would be successful

on the merits.” Id. at 574. The complaint alleges that after “implementing the Key

                                           9
to NYC vaccine mandate on August 17, 2021,” the Theater was “required to

process multiple refunds at every performance due to the mandate” as a result of

customers who arrived unaware of the need to produce proof of vaccination.

App’x 24 ¶ 54. Plaintiffs also allege that they were forced to hire additional staff

to check IDs and comply with the Key to NYC requirements. These allegations

plausibly allege an injury in fact. “Any monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff

satisfies this element; ‘even a small financial loss’ suffices.” Carter v. HealthPort

Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47, 55 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S.

Food & Drug Admin., 710 F.3d 71, 85 (2d Cir. 2013)) (alterations omitted). Plaintiffs

“have articulated a concrete, economic injury,” which is sufficient “to establish an

injury in fact for the purposes of Article III standing.” Dubuisson, 887 F.3d at 574. 1

1 In holding otherwise, the district court incorporated by reference the standing analysis from its
earlier opinion denying preliminary injunctive relief. See Clementine Co., 2022 WL 4096162, at *3
(citing Clementine Co., 2021 WL 5756398, at *5–16). But in doing so, the district court failed to
account for the higher burden facing a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief than that
applicable at the pleading stage. “At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury
resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice . . . .” Carter, 822 F.3d at 56 (quoting Lujan v.
Defs. Of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)). In contrast, a plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate
standing for purposes of a preliminary injunction is equivalent to that required for summary
judgment, at which point “a plaintiff cannot rest on such mere allegations, as would be
appropriate at the pleading stage.” Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401, 404 (2d Cir. 2011)
(cleaned up); accord New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42, 59 (2d Cir. 2020).

                                                  10
         Accordingly, we hold that Plaintiffs have standing to seek nominal damages

on their constitutional claims.

   II.      Sufficiency of the Complaint

         Our conclusion on standing does not end the analysis, however. We may

affirm the judgment of the district court on any ground that finds a basis in the

record and where, as here, the district court dismisses a complaint for lack of

standing, this Court can affirm on the alternative basis of failure to state a claim

even if it finds Article III’s standing requirements satisfied. See, e.g., Harry v. Total

Gas & Power N. Am., Inc., 889 F.3d 104, 107 (2d Cir. 2018); Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708

F.3d 82, 93–94 (2d Cir. 2013). The City argues it is appropriate to do so here, and

we agree, because Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a free speech claim under

the First Amendment or an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth

Amendment.

         At the outset, we note the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in which Key

to NYC was promulgated, and more specifically the then-“recent appearance in

the City of the highly transmissible Delta variant of COVID-19.” Exec. Order No.

225. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 191 U.S. 11 (1907), which remains good law, see We

The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, 17 F.4th 266, 293–94 (2d Cir. 2021), instructs us to

                                            11
uphold governmental measures to protect public health unless they bear “no real

or substantial relation to” the object of public health or are “beyond all question, a

plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.” 191 U.S. at 27;

see also Norris v. Stanley, —F. 4th —, No. 22-1200, 2023 WL 4530251, at *3–4 (6th Cir.

July 13, 2023). Key to NYC plainly had a real and substantial relation to the City’s

public health goal of combatting the COVID-19 pandemic. And for the reasons

that follow, we conclude that Key to NYC did not plainly and palpably invade

fundamental rights.

      Accordingly, we conclude that Plaintiffs fail to state a violation of the First

or Fourteenth Amendments and affirm on that alternative ground.

         A. First Amendment

      Plaintiffs argue that Key to NYC constituted a content- and viewpoint-based

restriction on their speech, violating their right to freedom of speech protected by

the First Amendment. The City argues that, under Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478

U.S. 697 (1986), Key to NYC did not even implicate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment

rights. In the alternative, the City contends that even if Key to NYC is viewed as

restricting Plaintiffs’ speech, it was a content-neutral regulation that survives

intermediate scrutiny. We agree with the City on both points.

                                          12
                  1. Key to NYC Did Not Implicate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment
                     Rights

       Arcara involved a proceeding brought by the local district attorney against

a defendant bookstore to enforce N.Y. Pub. Health Law §§ 2320–21, 2329, which

defined “places of prostitution, lewdness, and assignation as public health

nuisances” and permitted buildings found to be a public health nuisance to be

closed for up to a year. 478 U.S. at 699–700. The bookstore, Village Books and

News Store, was an “adult bookstore” selling “sexually explicit books and

magazines.” Id. at 698. The district attorney initiated proceedings to close the

bookstore after law enforcement “observed instances of masturbation, fondling,

and fellatio by patrons on the premises,” as well as “instances of solicitation of

prostitution.” Id. at 699. The bookstore argued that “the statutory closure remedy

impermissibly burden[ed] its First Amendment protected bookselling activities.”

Id. at 705. The New York Court of Appeals agreed. See id. at 701. But the United

States Supreme Court rejected that argument and held that the civil proceedings

that would result in the bookstore’s closure did not violate the First Amendment.

See id. at 707.

                                         13
      In the Supreme Court’s view, the bookstore’s free speech rights were not

implicated. New York’s public health law “was directed at unlawful conduct

having nothing to do with books or other expressive activity.” Id. The mere fact

that the store sold books “does not confer First Amendment coverage to defeat a

valid statute aimed at penalizing and terminating illegal uses of premises.” Id.

Thus, the Supreme Court concluded, the Court of Appeals erred in applying

intermediate scrutiny under United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), because

that line of cases applies only if the government is regulating expressive conduct,

whereas the law at issue in Arcara regulated indecent sexual conduct,

which“manifest[ed] absolutely no element of protected expression.” Arcara, 478

U.S. at 705.

      The Arcara Court also distinguished its decision in Minneapolis Star &

Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983), which struck

down a tax imposed on the sale of large quantities of newsprint and ink because

the tax had the effect of singling out newspapers to shoulder its burden. 478 U.S.

at 704. The New York Public Health Law at issue in Arcara, the Court reasoned,

did not “inevitably single out bookstores or others engaged in First Amendment

protected activities for the imposition of its burden.” Id. at 705.

                                           14
       At bottom, the Supreme Court emphasized that “neither the press nor

booksellers may claim special protection from governmental regulations of

general applicability simply by virtue of their First Amendment protected

activities.”   Id.   That is why businesses—even those engaged in expressive

activity—cannot invoke the First Amendment to claim immunity from, e.g., fire or

health code violations. Id. Even the enforced closure of the bookstore did not

impermissibly burden the store’s First Amendment right to sell books because the

store remained “free to carry on their bookselling business at another location,

even if such locations are difficult to find,” and the closure order “ha[d] nothing

to do with any expressive conduct at all.” Id. at 705 n.2.

       [E]very civil and criminal remedy imposes some conceivable burden
       on First Amendment protected activities . . . [,] [y]et we have not
       traditionally subjected every criminal and civil sanction imposed
       through legal process to “least restrictive means” scrutiny simply
       because each particular remedy will have some effect on the First
       Amendment activities of those subject to sanction. Rather, we have
       subjected such restrictions to scrutiny only where it was conduct with
       a significant expressive element that drew the legal remedy in the first
       place, as in O’Brien, or where a statute based on a nonexpressive
       activity has the inevitable effect of singling out those engaged in
       expressive activity, as in Minneapolis Star. . . . [T]he First Amendment
       is not implicated by the enforcement of a public health regulation of
       general application against the physical premises in which
       respondents happen to sell books.

                                          15
Id. at 706–07 (cleaned up).

       Applying Arcara’s logic to this case, we conclude that Plaintiffs’ free speech

rights are not implicated. Key to NYC was a “public health regulation of general

application against the physical premises in which [Plaintiffs] happen to” perform

theater. Id. at 707. Key to NYC “neither limit[ed] what” Plaintiffs “may say nor

require[d] them to say anything.” Rumsfeld v. F. for Acad. & Institutional Rts., Inc.

(“FAIR”), 547 U.S. 47, 60 (2006). 2 Theaters “remain[ed] free under [Key to NYC]

to express whatever views they may have” in their theatrical productions. FAIR,

547 U.S. at 60. In other words, Key to NYC regulated conduct, not speech. It

affected what indoor theater venues “must do”—check the vaccination status of

patrons and staff—“not what they may or may not say.” Id. Nor did Key to NYC

apply to Plaintiffs because of the content of their speech or the fact that they were

engaging in speech at all; it applied to a wide variety of indoor venues, most of

which would be hard-pressed to argue that there is any speech involved in their

2Key to NYC did require the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place informing prospective
patrons of the City’s vaccination requirement. Exec. Order No. 225 § 4. But Plaintiffs make no
mention of this requirement nor argue that it constitutes compelled speech. In any event, such
speech “is plainly incidental to [Key to NYC’s] regulation of conduct.” FAIR, 547 U.S. at 62.

                                               16
services, such as casinos, bowling alleys, billiard halls, restaurants, and gyms.

Exec. Order No. 225.

      Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Arcara by arguing that it “turn[ed] on sexual

activity, not general health regulation,” and that “the sexual activity carried on in

th[at] case manifest[ed] absolutely no element of protected expression.” Reply Br.

12–13 (citation omitted). In contrast, they contend, “[t]he production of a theatrical

act is pure speech.” Id. at 12 (citing Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61,

65 (1981)). This argument misses the point and draws the wrong parallels. The

Arcara Court recognized that the defendant bookstore was engaged in the business

of selling books—an activity entitled to First Amendment protection no less than

the staging of theatrical productions. But the defendants’ bookselling was not the

regulatory object of the New York Public Health Law and was not the reason

enforcement proceedings were brought.           See Arcara, 478 U.S. at 707 (“The

legislation providing the closure sanction was directed at unlawful conduct

having nothing to do with books or other expressive activity.”). Instead, the

relevant statutory provisions regulated certain forms of public sexual activity:

conduct, not speech. And the mere fact that the bookstore “happen[ed] to” be

engaged in a business involving speech did not exempt it from “enforcement of a

                                           17
public health regulation of general application against the physical premises” in

which it was located. Id.

      The same is true here. The laws at issue in this case and in Arcara both

constituted broadly applicable public health measures. The Key to NYC program

requiring checks of vaccination status, like the statutes in Arcara prohibiting public

sexual activity, regulated non-expressive conduct. The plaintiff theaters here, like

the defendant bookstore in Arcara, happen to be engaged in a business involving

First Amendment–protected speech, but that alone does not entitle them to “claim

special protection from governmental regulations of general applicability simply

by virtue of their First Amendment protected activities.” Id. at 705.

      In short, while we conclude that Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Key to NYC

injured them in the Article III sense by necessitating refunds for customers who

could not provide proof of vaccination and necessitating the hiring of additional

staff, they have not plausibly alleged that their free speech rights were violated

merely because they were required to turn away some patrons.               The First

Amendment protects the right to express one’s viewpoint, but “it does not

guarantee ideal conditions for doing so, since the individual’s right to speech must

always be balanced against the state’s interest” in regulating harmful conduct.

                                          18
Church of the Am. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik, 356 F.3d 197, 209 (2d Cir.

2004). “Because ‘every civil and criminal remedy imposes some conceivable

burden on First Amendment protected activities,’ a conduct-regulating statute of

general application that imposes an incidental burden on the exercise of free

speech rights does not implicate the First Amendment.” Id. (quoting Arcara, 478

U.S. at 706).

                 2. Key to NYC Survives Intermediate Scrutiny Even If It
                    Were Viewed As Restricting Plaintiffs’ Speech

      Because we hold that Key to NYC did not implicate Plaintiffs’ right to free

speech, we need not address the issue of what level of scrutiny applies. But even

assuming that it impaired Plaintiffs’ free speech rights, we would conclude that

Key to NYC does not violate the First Amendment. Key to NYC would be subject

only to intermediate scrutiny — “[t]he appropriate standard by which to evaluate

the constitutionality of a content-neutral regulation that imposes only an

incidental burden on speech.” Vincenty v. Bloomberg, 476 F.3d 74, 84 (2d Cir. 2007).

The principal inquiry in determining whether a regulation is content-based or

content-neutral “is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech

because of agreement or disagreement with the message it conveys.” Time Warner

                                         19
Cable Inc. v. F.C.C., 729 F.3d 137, 155 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). “In making

this determination, ‘we look to the purpose behind the regulation.’” Id. (quoting

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 526 (2001)). “[T]ypically, ‘government regulation

of expressive activity is content neutral so long as it is justified without reference

to the content of the regulated speech.’” Bartnicki, 532 U.S. at 526 (quoting Ward v.

Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)) (internal alteration and quotation

marks omitted). A regulation’s purpose will “often be evident on its face,” but

even a facially neutral regulation “may be content based if its manifest purpose is

to regulate speech because of the message it conveys.” Time Warner Cable, 729 F.3d

at 155 (cleaned up). “A regulation that serves purposes unrelated to the content

of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers

or messages but not others.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791.

      Under these standards, Key to NYC is content-neutral. Its purpose is to

“incentivize vaccinations” by “mandating vaccinations at the types of

establishments that residents frequent,” namely “indoor entertainment,

recreation, dining and fitness settings,” which “generally involve groups of

unassociated people interacting for a substantial period of time,” in the face of the

emergence of the new, “highly transmissible Delta variant of COVID-19.” Exec.

                                          20
Order No. 225. “[B]ecause it ‘serves purposes unrelated to the content of the

regulated expression,’” Key to NYC “is clearly a content-neutral speech

restriction.” Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York, 435 F.3d 78, 99 (2d Cir. 2006)

(quoting Hobbs v. County of Westchester, 397 F.3d 133, 150 (2d Cir. 2005)) (alterations

omitted). It makes no difference that Key to NYC may have incidentally affected

some speakers more than others because there is no allegation or plausible

argument that Key to NYC’s manifest purpose was to regulate speech because of

the message it conveys. See id. (“The mere fact that New York City differentiates

between categories of vendors . . . does not suggest that the City’s regulation targets

particular messages and favors others.”).

      A content-neutral regulation that imposes incidental burdens on speech

satisfies intermediate scrutiny “if it (1) ‘advances important governmental

interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech’ and (2) ‘does not burden

substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.’” Time Warner

Cable, 729 F.3d at 160 (quoting Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180, 189

(1997)). A regulation’s burden is not greater than necessary “so long as the neutral

regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less

effectively absent the regulation.” FAIR, 547 U.S. at 67 (quoting United States v.

                                           21
Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689 (1985)). Thus, “when a content-neutral regulation does

not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring

requirement even though it is not the least restrictive or least intrusive means of

serving the statutory goal.” Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 726 (2000). And where

the regulation leaves open alternative channels for communicating the speech,

they need not “be perfect substitutes for those channels denied to plaintiffs by the

regulation at hand.” Costello v. City of Burlington, 632 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 2011)

(quoting Mastrovincenzo, 435 F.3d at 101).

       Here, the City clearly had an important—indeed, compelling—interest in

promoting vaccination to combat the spread of COVID-19. See Kane v. De Blasio,

19 F.4th 152, 169 (2d Cir. 2021). And this interest would have been achieved less

effectively absent Key to NYC. The program was reasonably tailored to the

challenge of preventing the spread of COVID-19 by incentivizing vaccination, “the

most effective tool to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and protect against severe

illness.”   Exec. Order No. 225.        And the program targeted “the types of

establishments that . . . generally involve groups of unassociated people interacting for a

substantial period of time.” Id. (emphasis added). Houses of worship did not fall

within this category—and therefore were not covered by Key to NYC—but neither

                                             22
were other indoor settings that generally involved groups of associated individuals,

such as offices, residential buildings, or schools. And Key to NYC likewise did not

apply to indoor facilities involving unassociated groups of people where those

individuals would be unlikely to interact for a substantial period of time, whether those

facilities involved speech, such as bookstores, or not, such as grocery stores. In

any case, whether Key to NYC could have been tailored differently is “beside the

point.”   FAIR, 547 U.S. at 67.       “The issue is not whether other means of

[encouraging vaccination] might be adequate,” because that determination is left

to the City’s elected officials. Id. “It suffices that the means chosen . . . add to the

effectiveness of” the COVID vaccination program. Id.

      Moreover, Plaintiffs clearly continued to enjoy ample channels of

communicating their speech notwithstanding Key to NYC’s requirements.

Plaintiffs could continue to put on the exact same productions in the exact same

locations as they could have absent Key to NYC. The only limitation was that

patrons who could not produce proof of vaccination could not attend in person.

See Mastrovincenzo, 435 F.3d at 101 (holding NYC’s vendor licensing regime

survives intermediate scrutiny because it “in no way precludes plaintiffs from

reaching public audiences on the sidewalks generally, or in any of the specific

                                            23
venues where they currently hawk their wares” but rather “[a]t most . . . prohibits

plaintiffs, as unlicensed vendors, from personally selling their wares for a profit and

at a venue of their choosing”). And to the extent that Plaintiffs were determined to

reach unvaccinated patrons, they were free to seek alternative channels of

communicating, such as streaming their performances online or putting them on

outdoors. Plaintiffs may have preferred to stage their plays indoors before a live

audience regardless of their vaccination status, but “the First Amendment does

not require that New York City permit plaintiffs to sell their work directly to the

public in an ideal venue.” Id. at 102; Kerik, 356 F.3d at 209 (explaining that the First

Amendment “does not guarantee ideal conditions” for engaging in speech).

       In short, we conclude that even if it were construed as impairing Plaintiffs’

speech, Key to NYC does not violate the First Amendment. 3

3At times in their reply brief, Plaintiffs appear to invoke a violation of the Establishment Clause,
arguing that Key to NYC impermissibly favored religious speech by imposing requirements on
establishments like those run by Plaintiffs but not churches or other religious entities. But because
this claim was not “included in [the] complaint or raised below,” we “do not address [it] further.”
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 324 n.23 (2d Cir. 2015).

                                                  24
          B. Equal Protection

      Finally, Plaintiffs also repackage their free speech claim as an equal

protection claim. They argue that Key to NYC treats theaters differently from

similarly situated venues—such as houses of worship or a theatrical performance

put on at a school—by requiring some venues, but not others, to check vaccination

status, and that this differential treatment violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to

equal protection. We disagree and hold that Plaintiffs fail to state an equal

protection claim.

      The Equal Protection Clause “does not require that all persons be dealt with

identically, but it does require that a distinction made have some relevance to the

purposes for which the classification is made.” Kwong v. Bloomberg, 723 F.3d 160,

169 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 111 (1966)). In other

words, “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment’s promise that no person shall be denied

the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most

legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to

various groups or persons.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996). Accordingly,

“if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class,” it will

be upheld “so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.” Id.

                                            25
       Here, as discussed above, Key to NYC does not impair a fundamental right

because it does not violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Nor does it target

a suspect class—the requirements apply to indoor entertainment and recreational

settings, indoor food services, and indoor gyms and fitness centers. Exec. Order

No. 225 § 5(c). Accordingly, rational basis review applies. Cf. Kane, 19 F.4th at 167

n.14 (“When a free exercise challenge fails, any equal protection claims brought on

the same grounds are subject only to rational-basis review.” (quoting Does 1-6 v.

Mills, 16 F.4th 20, 35 (1st Cir. 2021))).

       “Rational basis review requires the City to have chosen a means for

addressing a legitimate goal that is rationally related to achieving that goal.” Id.

at 166. The rational basis for imposing the Key to NYC requirements on indoor

entertainment and recreational settings, indoor food services, and indoor gyms

and fitness centers has been discussed at length above. These are locations where

large numbers of unassociated individuals are likely to gather and spend

significant amounts of time exposed to one another, thereby posing a relatively

high risk of spreading COVID-19. Requiring individuals in those settings to be

vaccinated mitigated that risk and incentivized vaccination among the people

most likely to be in a position to spread the virus.

                                            26
       Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged an equal protection

violation.

                                        CONCLUSION

       We have considered Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find in them no

basis for reversal. We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims

for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 4

4Although the district court did not specify whether its dismissal was with or without prejudice,
dismissals “for lack of Article III standing . . . must be without prejudice.” Carter, 822 F.3d at 54.
Because here, we affirm on the alternative ground of failure to state a claim, we may dismiss with
prejudice. See Green v. Dep’t of Educ., 16 F.4th 1070, 1074 (2d Cir. 2021). Although courts “granting
a 12(b)(6) motion should consider a dismissal without prejudice when a liberal reading of the
complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated,” Van Buskirk v. N.Y. Times Co.,
325 F.3d 87, 91 (2d Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted), there is no such indication here.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is modified to specify that the dismissal is with
prejudice.

                                                  27