By Jonathan Ellett
FAIR
A New York state judge struck down New York City’s two-hundred-year-old “anti-pauper” law. New York City Mayor Eric Adams had sought to use the anti-pauper law to block charter bus companies from transporting illegal aliens from Texas to New York City. The mayor’s lawsuit itself represents a twist of irony, as New York City prides itself on its status as a sanctuary city open to all, including illegal aliens.
At the center of the lawsuit was Texas’ program to bus migrants to sanctuary cities across the U.S. That busing program dates back to Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s letter to the Chief of the Texas Division of Emergency Management (“TDEM”) in April 2022. Concerned about illegal aliens being released into Texan communities en masse, Governor Abbot directed TDEM “to begin coordinating the voluntary transportation … of migrants released from federal custody” to locations outside of Texas, including New York City.
But the program was halted after Mayor Eric Adams’ administration filed a lawsuit in January 2024 against the charter bus companies working with Texas. In its complaint, New York City argued that the charter bus companies were violating Section 149 of New York’s Social Services Law. This section imposes criminal penalties on “[a]ny person who knowingly brings, or causes to be brought, a needy person from out of the state into this state for the purpose of making him a public charge … and [that person] shall be obligated to convey such person out of the state or to support him at his own expense.” The administration also requested reimbursement from the companies for care costs exceeding $708,000,000.
In response, the charter bus companies moved to dismiss the entire suit on the grounds that Section 149 was unconstitutional. First, the companies argued that Section 149 violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it “targets the transportation of underprivileged persons into a city or state.” The companies asserted that this imposed “an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce” by restricting the free transport of individuals among the states when Congress has not chosen to do so.
Alternatively, the companies argued that even if Section 149 did not explicitly discriminate against interstate commerce, it was still invalid because its costs outweighed any local benefits it may have had. The companies claimed that the only benefit is the recouped cost of care that New York City would receive, while the costs include criminal and monetary penalties on any transport company carrying out its contractual obligations.
The companies also alleged that Section 149 violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by interfering with the federal government’s authority to regulate the entry and movement of noncitizens throughout the country. Additionally, they claimed that Section 149 created its own state penalties despite Congress’s expansive framework which already penalizes the transport and concealment of illegal aliens in the U.S.
Judge Mary V. Rosado of the New York Supreme Court’s 1st Judicial District presided over the case, and ultimately ruled in favor of the bus companies by dismissing the case and holding Section 149 unconstitutional. Judge Rosado wrote that the law violates a fundamental constitutional right: the right to travel. It does so, according to Judge Rosado, because it is not narrowly tailored, as enforcing Section 149 would require any transport company to conduct “due diligence” into their passengers’ socioeconomic status prior to transporting them to avoid legal liability. Therefore, to avoid “foist[ing] legal uncertainty on anyone who transports someone to New York” and “chill[ing] individuals’ fundamental right to interstate travel,” Judge Rosado felt compelled to declare Section 149 unconstitutional and dismiss the case.
Mayoral spokesperson Liz Garcia emphasized that the city’s administration is undeterred, saying, “[w]e are reviewing our legal options to address the costs shifted to New York City as a result of the Texas busing scheme.”
Meanwhile, the New York Civil Liberties Union exalted the decision, stating that “Mayor Adams is not above the law and cannot keep wrongly exploiting the plight of newly arrived immigrants to bolster his own political agenda.”
Now that the busing has resumed New York City must continue bearing the costs of illegal immigration and its own sanctuary city policies.
