Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul

Case docket

Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 22-38

Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 22-38 — 1 document in the archive, dated April 13, 2022.

See also: Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo — U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y. — the same docket (docket No. 1:20-cv-04834) under another case page, 37 public filings.

Case facts

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Docket numberNo. 22-38 — main docket · CourtListener docket 56379
Filings1 public filing
Filed2022-04-13
Original PDFs1 of 1

Case summary

This page holds the plaintiffs-appellants' brief in Second Circuit appeal No. 22-38 in Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 1:20-cv-04834-KAM, and a Second Circuit summary order dated March 27, 2023. The underlying suit challenged New York Executive Order No. 202.68 of October 6, 2020, which imposed red, orange and yellow zone capacity limits on houses of worship. The appeal is from the district court's order of December 6, 2021 granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The brief asks the court of appeals to vacate that order and remand for an award of $921,862.50 in fees. The summary order on this page yields no extracted text.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiffs-appellants: Agudath Israel of America, Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills, Agudath Israel of Madison, Rabbi Yisroel Reisman and Steven Saphirstein; Agudath Israel of Bayswater and Rabbi Menachem Feifer are named as plaintiffs. Defendant-appellee: Kathy Hochul, Governor of the State of New York, in her official capacity
Court and docketU.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 22-38, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 1:20-cv-04834-KAM (also styled 1:20-cv-04834-KAM-RML)
ProgramNot named in the filings on this page. The underlying dispute concerns Executive Order No. 202.68 of October 6, 2020 and its capacity limits on houses of worship
ClaimsOn appeal: whether the district court abused its discretion in denying in part the motion for attorney's fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), by applying a 10 percent reduction for work on the emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal and by awarding less than the highest in-district hourly rates and refusing a fees enhancement, and whether fees should be awarded for the appeal itself. The underlying claims were brought under the First Amendment
Disposition or statusThe district court granted in part and denied in part the fees motion on December 6, 2021, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on January 5, 2022. The page carries a Second Circuit summary order dated March 27, 2023, but its extracted text is empty, so its holding cannot be stated from this page
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What is the appeal about?

Attorney's fees. The brief states that the district court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) on December 6, 2021, that a notice of appeal was filed on January 5, 2022, and that the court of appeals has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine.

What did the underlying executive order do?

The brief states that on October 6, 2020 the Governor issued Executive Order No. 202.68 restricting gatherings at houses of worship, classifying affected areas as red, orange or yellow zones. In the red zone houses of worship were restricted to 25 percent of maximum occupancy or ten people, whichever was fewer; in the orange zone to 33 percent of maximum occupancy or twenty-five people, whichever was fewer.

How much was sought?

The brief asks the court to vacate the fees order and remand for an award reflecting the highest in-district rates and a fees enhancement, of $921,862.50, comprising $748,732.50 for Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP and $173,130.00 for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; in the alternative, at least $535,192.31, comprising $453,367.31 and $81,825.00, plus fees for the appeal.

Docket

1 document in docket-entry order; attachments follow their entry. Gaps name the entries we do not have.

No. 22-38

  1. —Entry 46: main document not in the archive
  2. Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants — Agudath Israel v. HochulEntry 46, attachment 1

More documents from this case’s dockets

8 more documents linked to this case’s dockets are in the archive and not in the docket above.

  1. undatedSummary Order — Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul (Second Circuit, No. 22-38, March 27, 2023)Source document
  2. undatedBill of Costs Instructions — Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul (Second Circuit, No. 22-38)Source document
  3. undatedVerified Itemized Bill of Costs — Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul (Second Circuit, March 27, 2023)Source document
  4. undatedNotice of Case Manager Change — Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul (Second Circuit, March 27, 2023)Source document
  5. undatedVerified Itemized Bill of Costs — Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul (Second Circuit, No. 22-38)Source document
  6. undatedMandate and Summary Order — Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul (Second Circuit, No. 22-38)Source document
  7. undatedStatement of Costs — Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul, No. 22-38 (Second Circuit, April 28, 2023)Source document
  8. undatedStatement of Costs (Certified Copy) — Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul, No. 22-38 (Second Circuit)Source document

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.

Back to top