NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay (opens in new tab)

Eric Adams' "performers and sports players" exemption was specifically to allow Broadway to re-open and to allow Kyrie Irving to play in Brooklyn.

The whole thing was a farce anyway so it doesn't matter.

Not merely arbitrary. From the decision: "This Court aggress that the Commissioner cannot enact a term of employment on City employees and has exceeded his scope of authority..."

Why would it make sense to exempt those people but not, say, firefighters?

This is 100% correct [1]:

> Mayor Eric Adams plans to announce on Thursday that professional athletes and performers working in New York City will no longer be required to show proof of vaccination against Covid-19, according to a person familiar with his plans.

> This means that Kyrie Irving, the Nets’ star point guard who has refused to get vaccinated, will be able to take the floor at Barclays Center in Brooklyn for the first time this season.

Adams is awful. NYC mayors exist to further the interests of property developers, corporations and the police unions. If that means that a public health measure needs to be sabotaged so some anti-vaxxer can play for the Nets, so be it.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/sports/kyrie-irving-nyc-v...

Sabotaged is a politically biased way of describing the events here. The reality is different as my sibling comment pointed out

Vaccine mandate is unlawful to begin with so there is nothing to sabotage.

I think that the headline describes the ruling better

My state's republican governor sued mayors closing down construction sites during the peak of the pandemic, and also exempted a dizzying number of industries and sectors.

For example: if you sold an ATV to a town police department, you were deemed an essential business and thus got to ignore the closure orders and keep your entire business, both offices and showrooms/repair centers, open.

...but then his administration also went around shutting down bicycle shops in the city. Guess what a lot of medical staff and "essential" blue-collar workers depend upon for transportation, particularly since the public transit system was largely shut down, dangerous to be on public-health-wise, and doesn't operate at hours useful for some shift workers?

Eventually he got the message, but not after a lot of very cringe comments to the press about the pandemic being "real" and implying that bike shops were just frivolous luxury stores.

Can you explain what's confusing about it? Seems perfectly crystal clear to me.

That is bizarre. Most states call them "superior" courts. Supreme implies, well, the superlative authority, and it is definitely not.

It is confusing because NY likes to be confusing.

Almost every other state the State Supreme Court, is the top court of the state, just like the federal court

And the Court of Appeals is lower than the State Supreme Court.

Why NY needs to needless complicate everything is beyond me

>where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place

You've hit the core problem of society/government that countless generations have tried to obfuscate via an academic body that implies that social interactions can be studied/understood like natural sciences.

At the core, all social structure is built on the threat of violence - Commit non-violent white collar crime? Show up to court, because if you don't you'll get arrested. Run from the police when they try to arrest you? You'll get taken by force.

Reject Capitalism? Starve to death on the streets.

Sure, there's political theory and economics can act like "utility" drives all things, but at the end of the day, it's the threat of some sort of violently bad outcome that keeps society in check.

The recent rub is that we have (probably correctly) decided that violence is bad and we should all just be chill and work together because it's good for all of us. We've also created hyper complex systems that couldn't even theoretically be kept in check with violence (Who am I going to punch when I was duped by a crypto scam?).

So instead of angry mobs tarring and feathering bad politicians/business people (probably bad) we just grouse on the Internet (bad but not as bad).

And stuff like this keeps happening, because an increasingly large number of people (especially the wealthy and politicians) are realizing the threat of violence isn't that great anymore. Like look at Elon Musk - his whole deal is proving that there are no bad consequences to doing whatever he wants and he's revered for it because people who still have a risk of violence in their lives are jealous but believe they one day could get to a similar place.

There's not really a solution other than figuring out how to may people be chill and cooperative on their own (good luck).

The consequences in theory are political. Theoretically Congress should be impeaching Presidents and expelling members that do not uphold their oaths.

Executing consequences into popular Presidents or other members of Congress would also be politicized and have political consequences for Congress, so it doesn’t happen. That said, leaving impeachment or expulsion of legislative members to the Courts would also give them too much power.

So the real consequences are at election time. If you ran to retain your seat, and lost, that’s your comeuppance. It’s not granular, but it gets the job done eventually. This is also why control of the White House flips back and forth so much: nothing any President does is particularly popular most of the time, they just have the votes to do it. Incumbents do get massive advantages in staying power but in the present day, two terms looks like about the maximum we would be able to tolerate a President’s political party in the Oval Office and typically after midterms they no longer have the votes in Congress either.

Most of this is generally applicable to the States, but I don’t know New York politics specifically but would note that the previous Governor was put into a position where he was pretty much forced to resign both for scandals and for the actions he took while in office; and that was a slow slow build up.

In cases of judicial review where the courts strike down a law, it's usually not as simple as you're trying to make it.

First of all it's not at all clear in advance that the laws are unconstitutional, and that the lawmakers are "perpetrators". Plenty of times the laws are challenged and the courts uphold them. The whole point is that laws often push boundaries or address areas not previously addressed by the courts, and of course courts are political too. Lawmakers are trying to do what they believe is right for the people, and courts are too, and sometimes they disagree, and all of this is legitimate.

And second, what would it even mean for a court to "penalize" lawmakers? For the government to penalize itself? The lawmakers are elected and often passing laws their constituents voted them into office precisely in order to pass. Do you want to fine the lawmakers and take away their salary? Do you want to fine the people who voted for them? No, of course not. That's ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as legislatures (or governors) fining judges when they think judges decide cases wrongly.

This isn't criminal, it's legitimate disagreement over what policy and law ought to be. Penalizing lawmakers doesn't make any sense. In the end the court overturns something, and if a change is dangerous/disruptive enough the courts place an immediate injunction until the final decision is made. This is how democracies work.

(On the other hand, if a legislator breaks a law personally, e.g. murders somebody, they are tried personally and go to jail just like anybody else.)

You’re seeing this play out with student loan forgiveness.

Most legal scholars don’t believe it’s legal and will be overturned. But everyone also agrees any money given out will not be returned, so they’re rushing to get as much debt forgiven before it’s overturned.

Ancient Athens -- birthplace of democracy -- had an answer [1]. The sponsor of a law that was later found to be, in modern parlance, unconstitutional, could be fined.

Also worth considering: ostracism [2].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphe_paranomon

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

In general, such consequences would be applied by the public. If the people feel that the executive overreached and is no longer honoring their oath, the people don't re-elect that executive. There are some exceptions (such as the impeachment power of the federal Congress), but in a system where the public elects the executive, the last recourse of a bad executive is the public's right to elect someone else. And even in cases like the power of congressional impeachment, the punishment they can extend is removal from office and nothing more.

No, if someone broke the law in the process of exercising the executive authority, that's a different issue. But we don't generally have laws of the form "the executive is not allowed to infringe on non-fundamental liberties during an emergency," because history shows that emergencies happen and sometimes people just have to be told what to do (arguably, that's one of the reasons we bother to have an executive at various levels of government).

> How do courts declare certain executive orders unconstitutional, and yet the perpetrators, who took an oath to uphold and defend said rights and values, face no consequences?

Same way no one suffered any consequences for deciding to support the opposition in the Syrian civil war to piss off Assad long after it was obvious they weren’t going to get him out and the only consequence was going to be lots of dead Stands mom Syrians. Same way there were no consequences for bombing Libya into civil war and open air slave markets. Same way there were no consequences for no WMDs in Iraq.

There needs to be a coalition to make them pay. It needs to be not just powerful enough, but committed.

>Something I've been wondering in recent cases where courts are overturning recent government action, whether unconstitutional bills passed into law, or unconstitutional executive actions that overstep authority, is where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place?

Unfortunately the penalty falls only on the taxpayer, and not at all on the lawmakers who pass unconstitutional laws or declare executive actions that they do not have the legal authority to declare as law. Indeed, lawmakers routinely flaunt their ability to enact laws that they know are unconstitutional across the political spectrum, to abortion laws (pre Dobbs) in "red states" to gun laws in "blue states". The recent NY legislation in the wake of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision is the perfect example. It contained all sorts of blatantly unconstitutional measures, like requiring those applying for gun permits to turn over all their social media accounts for scrutiny. But since there is no potential penalty suffered by lawmakers who willfully and knowingly violate the Constitution, this sort of unlawful, blatant political pandering is going to continue.

This is what 18 USC 242 was written for. Allowing for punishments up to the death penalty for depravation of rights under the color of law. You’d need a federal government who would be willing to prosecute such a case however, but it’s possible.

Imagine, for a minute, that it was a crime for a politician to try to pass unlawful laws. That would, sooner or later, be abused by the group with political control to effectively criminalize opposition. Declare their opponents' efforts unlawful, convict them, and they're out of the way.

You have to consider not only the effects of nominal usage, but also the effects of abuse. In this case, they're extreme.

it's important to note that this is not the top court in new york, rather the beginning of the process of retrial and appeals. So, in effect, nothing will happen as a result of this ruling other than more appeals

> How do courts declare certain executive orders unconstitutional, and yet the perpetrators, who took an oath to uphold and defend said rights and values, face no consequences?

Isn't this like saying developers should suffer consequences if they allow bugs to get into their code? Because we are perpetrators of flawed code, like law makers are perpetrators of flawed laws?

> Regardless of one's opinion of said rights, how do courts blatantly ignore rulings and orders from higher courts with no repercussions?

Because to do otherwise is to abandon civil process (where people get to argue about laws, and they have the right to be wrong without further consequence than being wrong) and enters into what would effectively devolve into mob rule.

The separate branches of government limit each other, but they can't impose punishments on the other. That's up to the electorate.

The remedy in American law is supposed to be electoral, not legal.

It's a little weird to be concerned about this now around COVID policies, and not during the last fifty years of laws passed by republican state legislatures that barely last past the ink drying on the law before getting slapped with an injunction and ultimately struck down by the courts, but not after the state AG wastes millions of dollars in taxpayer funds fighting it as high up the federal court system as possible.

Just to name a few: Book bans, anti-LGBTQ bills (bathroom bills and more), edicts on what doctor can or cannot say to patients (or must say to patients), ag-gag, voting restrictions, and anti-abortion-choice laws.

All passed with the full knowledge they'll be struck down almost immediately, with the express purpose of tying up funds of progressive non-profits and getting to brag to their base about how they're trying to further 'The Cause' (you know how conservatives are always going on about "liberal virtue-signaling? As always, they're great at projection.)

Unless the government actually about faces and holds the elected officials responsible, it devolves into unsanctioned violence, be it domestic terrorism, civil war, unrest, whatever the game of the week. That's what happens.

Penalties are generally meted out using the press (smear reputations through excessive focus on one person, show kompromat) and economic actors (withdraw sponsors, withdraw funding, etc). In the rare case that someone fails to be adequately railroaded using press and economics, yes, judges do mete out hefty fines and jail sentences, as a punishment of last resort against regime opponents, or give slaps on the wrist to regime allies (in this case, slap on the wrist). All justified with a 20-page verbal "explanation", of course, but those are just meaningless words for ultimately political decisions.

The Bonta team in California has been eggregiously playing the circuit-to-district football, violating fundamental rights of citizens. The 13th circuit is in bed with California state district attorney and the state legislator (both the husband and wife, "Bontas"). Wife is a legislator and the husband is the CA District attorney.

Lawyers are totally baffled at what is going on.

This idea seems to be exactly the essence of the ruling. Not sure why you're being downvoted.

Not really, they were watching out for the health of other employees who had to work with employees that refused to do the most basic acts to prevent the spread of a deadly virus.

When you willingly refuse to get vaccinated, and are thus more likely to catch and spread COVID, shouldn't we make you pay for any lives you've contributed to taking away?

They were fired for cause, namely, insubordination. The resistance to vaccination is entirely political. The mandate was not, but instead in the interests of public safety and health. Easing the mandate for special cases was a terrible decision. The decision to ease the mandate should be reversed, not the mandate itself. So quickly they've forgotten the piles of bodies of COVID victims in NYC.

There wasn't hate, at least not broadly. There was anger, sure, but not hate. At the time the focus was on making sure the vaccinations were taken seriously so as to protect those who couldn't do it, and plenty of people instead made ideological and self-centered decisions (their right to do so) rather than compassionate and ethical ones.

This will get appealed. NY supreme court is just their basic trial court

They did something "right" alright - this will get smacked down by the next level.

This will fail on appeal. NYC had every right to require vaccines.

The judicial branch is not in the executive or legislative branch. Courts can invalidate laws and regulations from the executive or legislative branches. It is called Checks & Balances. It has kept power distributed for almost 250 years, preventing it from becoming concentrated in any one branch of government. Should that occur, you'd have bad actors enacting a one-party tyrannical state and tens of millions would die, mostly through starvation, but a good many through a state apparatus. It is familiar music. Our civilization has had to deal with such bad actors for a very long time, but despite the lessons of the past, there are still some who desire the one-party state. There is no sign that we, as a species, has completely eliminated the lust for power that's innate in humanity. It is for this reason that the founding fathers hard-coded such things into our nation which act as a stop-gap for tyrants.

Courts exist to make people whole.

The court decided the executive branch didn't have the right to fire the workers. Because of that, the workers lost their jobs, insurance, and pay.

How else would you suggest the court make them whole again?

> Articles like this are being misleading on purpose.

Maybe your complaint should be with the State of New York for having such a misleading name for their lowest-level trial court, and not the OP for literally referring to it by its name ;-)

"At will" doesn't mean you can fire for any reason.

Even if you don't state the reason (which they did), it would be illegal to fire all black people from a company, because it's trivial to prove for a large enough company.

"at will" doesn't supercede civil rights act and other laws.

I think that would make things more partisan, not less. Those hundreds of judges are not going to have the time to study the case in as much detail as the assigned judges, so their decisions will be based on a quick cursory reading, and their justification won't be on the record to be reviewed by higher courts. While motivated reasoning is always a concern, I would expect it to be more common in decisions made in this situation.

I think you're just describing court packing because maybe you disagree with the outcome based on your partisan politics?

I have a feeling this would make things considerably more political.

If you don’t like what judges decide, get people elected who will write things clearly into law. If they can’t do that, it sucks, go fix the political situation and stop trying to fix that dysfunction by making major systematic changes.