19-1715-cv New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2019 No. 19-1715-cv NEW HOPE FAMILY SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHEILA J. POOLE, in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner for the Office of Children and Family Services for the State of New York, Defendant-Appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York ARGUED: NOVEMBER 13, 2019 DECIDED: JULY 21, 2020 Before: CABRANES, RAGGI, Circuit Judges, KORMAN, District Judge. * _____ ______ Plaintiff, New Hope Family Services, Inc., is a voluntary, privately funded Christian ministry devoted to providing adoption services and authorized to do so in the State of New York for more than 50 years. New Hope professes that, consistent with its religious beliefs, it cannot recommend adoptions by unmarried or same-sex couples. It does not itself disapprove such couples; rather, it refers them to other adoption agencies. In 2018, the State’s Office of Children and Family Services (“OCFS”) informed New Hope that its policy respecting unmarried and same-sex couples violates the anti- discrimination mandate of N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 421.3(d). OCFS advised New Hope that it either had to change its policy or close its operation. Rather than do either, New Hope sued OCFS in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (D’Agostino, J.) for violations of its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. It now appeals from a judgment dismissing its complaint for failure to state a claim and denying its motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. New Hope argues that the district court erred in concluding that it failed to state plausible claims for violations of its rights of Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech and, therefore, in rejecting its preliminary injunction motion as moot. *Judge Edward R. Korman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 2 New Hope urges this court both to reinstate these claims and to grant it preliminary injunctive relief. We agree that New Hope’s Free Exercise and Free Speech claims should not have been dismissed at the pleadings stage and, therefore, that its preliminary injunction motion is not moot. We remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including whether to grant New Hope a preliminary injunction preventing OCFS from mandating the closure of New Hope’s adoption operation while the merits of this case are litigated. Pending the district court’s ruling on that preliminary injunction motion, the narrow injunction granted by this court shall remain in effect. REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. ROGER G. BROOKS (Jeana J. Hallock, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, Arizona, John J. Bursch, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, District of Columbia, Christopher P. Schandevel, Alliance Defending Freedom, Ashburn, Virginia, Robert E. Genant, Genant Law Office, Mexico, New York, on the brief), Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Plaintiff-Appellant. LAURA ETLINGER, Assistant Solicitor ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals