People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiffs did not state a Free Exercise claim where, inter alia, ACS removed children who were unvaccinated due to their parents’ religious beliefs
• noting that while DOJ findings were not controlling, such findings were analyzed at length, noting their probative value in showing patterns and potential constitutional violations
• holding that a challenge to the constitutionality of a system-wide policy of resolving an ambiguity in child abuse investigations in favor of finding that abuse had occurred was not barred by Rook-er-Feldman as the case did not challenge a finding of neglect or abuse in any particular case
• holding that a challenge to the constitutionality of a system-wide policy of resolving an ambiguity in child abuse investigations in favor of finding that abuse had occurred was not barred by Rooker-Feldman as the case did not challenge a finding of neglect or abuse in any particular case
• finding that Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply because plaintiffs were challenging ACS policy, not validity of particular family court decisions, and were seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as monetary damages
• denying motion to dismiss equal protection claims asserting that policy of resolving ambiguities in favor of removal discriminated against African-American parents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).