Administrative law in New York health mandates
I. Overview: Administrative Law and Health Mandates in New York
In New York, public health mandates are typically issued by administrative agencies, primarily:
The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)
The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYC DOHMH)
Other related agencies like the Governor’s Office
These agencies derive their authority from state statutes such as the New York Public Health Law (PHL) and Executive Law, enabling them to issue health orders, regulations, and mandates aimed at protecting public health.
Administrative law governs the power and procedures these agencies must follow, including:
Rulemaking authority
Procedural due process
Judicial review of agency actions
Scope and limits of agency discretion
II. Statutory Authority for Health Mandates in New York
New York Public Health Law (PHL), Article 21: Empowers the Commissioner of Health to issue orders to control communicable diseases.
Executive Law § 29-a and § 29-b: Grants the Governor emergency powers to suspend statutes and issue orders during emergencies.
New York State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA): Governs how agencies promulgate rules and adjudicate disputes.
III. Key Case Law on Administrative Health Mandates in New York
1. Matter of New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York State Department of Health, 36 N.Y.3d 938 (2021)
Issue: Challenge to COVID-19 restrictions imposed by NYSDOH during the pandemic.
Holding: The New York Court of Appeals upheld the DOH’s authority under PHL to impose restrictions, emphasizing broad emergency powers granted by the legislature.
Significance: Confirmed that health mandates during emergencies are entitled to substantial deference if grounded in public health statutes.
2. Matter of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (Though a U.S. Supreme Court case, it involved NY health orders)
Facts: Religious organizations challenged New York's COVID-19 restrictions limiting attendance at places of worship.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that the restrictions violated the First Amendment because they treated houses of worship more harshly than comparable secular businesses.
Significance: Placed limits on health mandates in New York by requiring that restrictions be neutral and generally applicable, especially regarding religious freedom.
3. Matter of Albany Hist. Coal. v. New York State Dep’t of Health, 186 A.D.3d 1004 (3d Dept. 2020)
Issue: Challenge to DOH orders mandating business closures and limits on gatherings.
Holding: The appellate court upheld the DOH’s authority to impose such orders under emergency powers, emphasizing the need for quick action to protect public health.
Significance: Affirmed the broad discretion agencies have in emergencies, especially when there is a public health threat.
4. Matter of S.T. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 36 N.Y.3d 997 (2021)
Issue: A challenge to the NYC DOE’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate for schoolchildren.
Holding: The court held that the vaccine mandate was within the agency’s authority under public health laws and did not violate constitutional rights.
Significance: Supported administrative authority to impose vaccine mandates in the educational context when grounded in health law.
5. Matter of United Teachers of New York v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2019 WL 6799509 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2019)
Issue: Challenge to NYC DOE’s health-related employee mandates.
Holding: The court deferred to the agency’s expertise, upholding the mandates as reasonable exercises of administrative authority.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that administrative agencies have latitude in crafting health policies affecting public employees.
6. Matter of Elmendorf Reformed Church v. New York City Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2021 WL 4598307 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2021)
Issue: Challenge to NYC DOHMH vaccine mandate for religious organizations.
Holding: The court found the mandate was lawful under emergency powers but emphasized that reasonable accommodations for religious objections must be considered.
Significance: Demonstrated the balance between public health and religious liberty in New York administrative health mandates.
IV. Procedural and Substantive Requirements in New York Administrative Health Mandates
Notice and Comment: Some health mandates are issued as emergency rules exempt from SAPA’s notice and comment due to urgency but must later comply with rulemaking procedures.
Due Process: Individuals or entities affected by health mandates have rights to hearings or administrative appeals in many cases.
Judicial Review: Courts apply a deferential “rational basis” standard to health mandates during emergencies but will intervene if mandates violate constitutional rights or exceed statutory authority.
V. Important Principles Emerging from New York Case Law
Broad Agency Discretion During Emergencies: Courts generally uphold health mandates when agencies act within statutory authority and base decisions on public health data.
Balance Between Public Health and Individual Rights: While public health is paramount, mandates must respect constitutional protections like free exercise of religion and due process.
Temporary Nature of Emergency Orders: Many mandates are subject to sunset provisions or ongoing review to prevent indefinite restrictions.
Accommodation of Religious and Medical Exemptions: Courts require consideration of exemptions to maintain constitutional balance.
VI. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| NY Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers | 2021 | COVID-19 restrictions by NYSDOH | Upheld broad emergency health powers |
| Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo | 2020 | Religious freedom vs. health mandates | Restrictions must be neutral and not target religion |
| Albany Hist. Coal. v. NYSDOH | 2020 | Business closure orders | Upheld DOH authority in emergencies |
| S.T. v. NYC Dept. of Education | 2021 | Vaccine mandates for schoolchildren | Mandates upheld under health law |
| United Teachers of NY v. NYC Dept. of Education | 2019 | Health mandates for employees | Deferred to agency expertise |
| Elmendorf Reformed Church v. NYC DOHMH | 2021 | Vaccine mandates and religious objections | Mandates lawful; religious accommodations necessary |
VII. Conclusion
New York’s administrative agencies have broad statutory authority to issue and enforce public health mandates, especially during emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. Courts generally give deference to agencies in crafting these mandates but maintain a balance with constitutional protections, especially religious freedoms.
Key takeaways:
Emergency health mandates are widely upheld when supported by public health statutes.
Agencies must respect due process and accommodate religious/medical exemptions when required.
Judicial review will strike down mandates that exceed statutory authority or violate constitutional rights.
The New York courts rely heavily on established public health law and precedent, applying a reasonableness standard in emergencies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments