On November 8th, 2022 Eris Evolution LLC filed a suit against the New York State Liquor Authority (NYSLA) , claiming the NYSLA was breaching the Establishment Clause by upholding the New York State law regarding Sunday all - night permits. “New York law prohibits bars from serving alcohol between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 4 a.m. and 10 a.m. on Sunday” (“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC”). There is an exception, called the “all-night permit”, to the New York state law regarding the regular hours allowed to serve alcohol which allows alcohol to be served until 8 a.m. The use of the “all-night permit” is only allowed on New Year's Eve.
Eris Evolution LLC believes that the Sunday Closing laws being the sole reason as to why the all-night permit can’t be filed for in years such as this one, 2023, is an Establishment Clause issue. This belief is what led the LLC to “[move] for a preliminary injunction … to process its application for a permit” (“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC”). This basically means Eris Evolution LLC believes it will suffer immensely if it isn’t allowed to remain open on New Years and the only way to avoid this immense suffering is to be granted the permit.
Which brings us to the constitutional question: Is New York State Liquor Authority violating the Establishment Clause by upholding the New York State law which bans Sunday “all-night permits” in years where New Years Eve falls on a Sunday, therefore denying Eris Evolution LLC’s request of a Sunday “all-night permit” for 2023?
In their summary the New York Federal District court stated that the NYSLA was not breaching the Establishment Clause and referenced McGowan V Maryland to serve as a precedent for this case. In McGowan v Maryland, employees of a discount store sold supplies on a Sunday that was not outlined as the supplies they were allowed to sell under Maryland's blue laws. For clarification, blue laws are the same thing as Sunday closing laws. The question of the case was if Maryland’s blue laws violated the Establishment Clause and it was found that they didn’t ("McGowan v. Maryland."). Blue laws began as a religious law, trying to get more individuals to attend church and be faithful to their religions. However in modern times the blue laws have taken on a secular nature. The blue laws' secular nature is to “improve the "health, safety, recreation, and general well-being" of citizens” ("McGowan v. Maryland.").
Eris Evolution LLC’s main arguments in support of their claim that the store will suffer greatly if it is not able to remain open the whole night is that the New York state's laws regarding Sunday closings are a “sham” since the Sunday closing laws have fluctuated frequently over the years regarding the time of day liquor is allowed to be sold (“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC”). The remaining arguments of Eris Evolution were drawn from earlier cases, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo and Elrod v Burns, in an attempt to prove, “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury… those cases deal with … [a] loss of a free exercise or free speech right” which is not the same as a loss of an Establishment right (“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC”).
In response the New York Federal District courts state “three distinct theories … to pursue a claim that the Establishment Clause has been violated: 1) taxpayer, 2) direct harm, and 3) denial of benefits” (“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC”). The courts found that Eris Evolution LLC’s main claim fell under the second theory of “direct harm” through money lost due to having to close their business earlier than in past years. Therefore money would be the only remedy which the courts felt was not enough of a direct harm to invalidate the Establishment Clause and to be granted the permit.
I agree with the New York Federal District court’s outcome that the NYSLA was correct in denying Eris Evolution LLC’s request of a Sunday “all-night permit” on the basis of upholding the New York State law which bans Sunday “all-night permits” in years where New Year's Eve falls on a Sunday. I don’t believe that New York’s Sunday closing laws breach the Establishment Clause because of the modern view on Sunday closing laws. I understand the role of history in this case, in that the Sunday closing laws were originally religiously affiliated; however the significance surrounding the history of Sunday closing laws is not enough to sway the outcome in a different way for this case. What is important in deciding whether or not New York’s Sunday closing laws breach the Establishment clause is how the public views the Sunday closing today, which is that the laws hold a secular purpose. At this point in time, I don’t believe the public views the Sunday closing laws as the government trying to establish or push some form of religion onto the public. Furthermore I believe the implications of this court’s decision is just furthering the outcome of McGowan V Maryland, that Sunday closing laws hold a secular purpose and are therefore not infringing upon the Establishment clause.
Do you believe the only implication of this court’s decision is furthering the outcome of the McGowan v Maryland case? What could some other implications be?
Do you believe the secular nature that the courts profess the Sunday laws now hold is enough to override the Sunday Laws' historically religious nature?
Sources:
“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK v ERIS EVOLUTION, LLC” https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23298376/eris-evolution-v-bradley.pdf
"McGowan v. Maryland." https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/8
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2022/11/court-upholds-ny-law-banning-bars-from.html
https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-eris-evolution-llc-v-bradley-1255621
1 comment:
Great post! I agree that the New York state law is not secular, as it gives an exception for religions that have their Sabbath on Sunday which are most popular religions in America (Christianity and Judaism). I think this case can be a start for a trend towards religious neutrality in America, not establishment and free exercise rights for "popular" religions, which answers the question about McGowan where Sabbath days will not be established as there are different Sabbath days for different religions. I also feel as if the rare exception where New Years Eve falls on a Sunday still inconveniences bar owners who do not have a religion that has a Sunday Sabbath. There should be no regulation on this, as it should be the owner's decision whether or not their bar should be open on a Sunday New Year's Eve and may risk losing profits.
Post a Comment