A New York County Supreme Court justice found that the city’s new restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution by impeding migrants’ right to travel.
A Manhattan-based judge has ruled that New York City can no longer cite a centuries-old “anti-pauper” law to prevent Texas from transporting migrants from the U.S.-Mexico border to the city.
In her ruling, New York County Supreme Court Justice Mary Rosado said that the anti-pauper law is unconstitutional. States, Rosado wrote, do not have any authority to regulate the interstate movement of persons based solely upon their economic status.
New York City’s restriction “violates the Interstate Commerce Clause pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v California,” Rosado said.
Attempting to interfere with their transportation also “violates a fundamental right—the right to travel.”
“The fundamental right to travel across State lines encompasses travel for the purpose of ‘temporary sojourn’ or to become a permanent resident,” Rosado wrote. “State law implicates the constitutional right to travel when (a) it actually deters such travel; (b) when impending travel is its primary objective; or (c) when it uses any classification which it serves to penalize exercise of that right.”
Rosado wrote that New York City’s rules abridge “the constitutional right to travel on all three grounds.”
She also determined that requiring charter bus companies to screen passengers based on the possibility that they may need economic assistance upon arrival at their destination would infringe upon this right to travel, and that it is thereby unlawful to penalize businesses that refuse to comply.
“The Court is cognizant of the financial burdens borne by the City of New York in providing shelter and services to the many migrants who have sought refuge and opportunity in this diverse and welcoming city,” Rosado wrote. “[…] However, it is not the role of this Court to create policy, be it immigration, budgetary, or social services. Rather, it is this Court’s role to ensure the law is upheld, including this nation’s law, the United States Constitution.”
The New York Civil Liberties Union, which opposed New York City’s ordinance, has since applauded the court’s ruling.
“Mayor [Eric] Adams is now above the law and cannot keep wrongly exploiting the plight of newly arrived immigrants to bolster his own political agenda,” NYCLU senior staff attorney Beth Haroules said in a statement. “Everyone, regardless of their citizenship status or income, has the right to travel freely and reside anywhere in the United States.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, for his part, said that Mayor Adams has every right to be upset about the sudden surge in migrant arrivals—but that blame should lie with the federal government, rather than Abbott’s administration.
Adams, notes The Texas Tribune, did eventually criticize the Biden administration, saying that the federal government has a responsibility to help the city pay for the costs of housing and providing other services to undocumented immigrants.
Liz Garcia, a spokesperson for Adams’s office, told The Hill that the mayor is assessing his next steps.
“We are reviewing our legal options to address the costs shifted to New York City as a result of the Texas busing scheme,” Garcia said.
Sources
Commissioner of the N.Y. City Dept. of Social Servs. v Buckeye Coach LLC
Judge rules New York cannot block Texas from sending migrant buses
Judge says New York can’t use ‘antiquated, unconstitutional’ law to block migrant buses from Texas
New York can’t use “antiquated, unconstitutional” law to block migrant buses from Texas, judge says
Join the conversation!