Posted to Jewish News on
On Friday, the Federal Appeals Court ruled on a motion challenging the New York City regulation on metzitzah b'peh and informed consent. The court ruled that the regulation “…targets a religious practice for special burdens" and therefore violated the First Amendment guarantee of a person’s right to free exercise of religion.

Federal Court Rules against MBP Regulations

On Friday, the Federal Appeals Court ruled on a motion challenging the New York City regulation on metzitzah b’peh and informed consent. The court ruled that the regulation “…targets a religious practice for special burdens” and therefore violated the First Amendment guarantee of a person’s right to free exercise of religion.

The following is a statement from the plaintiffs, which include the Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States & Canada, Agudath Israel of America, and the International Bris Association:

The plaintiff organizations in the federal legal challenge against the New York City Health Department’s regulation governing metzitzah b’peh issued the following statement upon the US Court of Appeals’ ruling earlier today reversing a federal district court’s upholding of the regulation.

Today’s ruling is a great victory — not only for those whose religious rights are directly infringed by the Bloomberg Administration’s regulation of metzitzah b’peh, but for all Americans who cherish religious freedom.

The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the regulation we have challenged “purposely and exclusively targets a religious practice for special burdens”; and that it “pertains to religious conduct associated with a small percentage of HSV infection cases among infants, while leaving secular conduct associated with a larger percentage of such infection unaddressed.” Under circumstances like these, where a religious practice is singled out for special regulation, the regulation must be subject to “strict scrutiny.” The Court of Appeals has thus reaffirmed that the First Amendment’s guaranty of a person’s right to free exercise of religion is entitled to the very highest level of constitutional protection.

The plaintiffs are deeply gratified by today’s ruling, and are hopeful that the regulation will either be withdrawn at this time or declared unconstitutional in any further court proceedings. We will continue to do all in our power to ensure that mohalim continue to adhere to the highest standards of safety and hygiene in carrying out their religious mission, and we reiterate our longstanding readiness to work together with health officials to protect our children’s health while fully respecting and accommodating our religious practice.

We thank our lawyers, the Jones Day law firm, for the wonderful job they have done in advocating our constitutional freedoms; and we express our appreciation to the two groups who submitted amicus curiae briefs in support of our legal position: the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Alliance Defending Freedom.

Related Articles

9 Comments

  • declasse' intellectual

    The decision should have been obvious.
    this is another case of those who believe that nanny government has to right to control and to run the lives of the people. Same thing with the movement to ban both bris millah and schetcta Remember the whole issue with Hobby Lobby was not about freedom of religion or contraception, but nanny government’s right to tell the populace what to believe, how believe and when to believe. It is time for the Jewish population to support these efforts to stop nanny government from interfering into our lives by telling us how to practice our religion.

  • DIDAN NOTZACH!

    May this lead to an immediate repeal of all the “bans” against Yidden around the world, with bris mila, shchita and other infringements of our right to practice Hashem’s commandments!

  • DiDAN NOTACH

    Hodu l’hashem

    We always must be vigilant & be aware what antisemites(&jewish ones) are plotting

  • SEREL MANESS

    TO #3 AMEN,I ALSO HAD A HAND IN THIS TO BILL,I GAVE HIM A LETTER EXPLAINING THE WHOLE THING,THANK G-D,EVERYTHING WORKS OUT WELL

    • Milhouse

      Indeed, while this decision may ultimately prove important, for now nothing has been won. All this decision does is set the standard of review at strict scrutiny, instead of rational basis, and instruct the lower court to reconsider its denial of a preliminary injunction in that light. There is still no preliminary injunction against the city, and the lower court might still decide not to give one. And even if one is issued, there will still have to be a trial, and then maybe a string of appeals, before we can declare “didan n’tzach”.

  • Milhouse

    The court ruled that the regulation “…targets a religious practice for special burdens” and therefore violated the First Amendment guarantee of a person’s right to free exercise of religion.

    Correction: the court did not rule that the regulation violates anything.

    The legal situation now is exactly as it was before. The regulations are in force, and the plaintiffs are applying to the district court for a temporary injunction until the case is heard. We have no idea whether the injuction will be granted or not, or how the case will go. All that has changed is that the appeals court has clarified to the district court what level of scrutiny it should apply to the regulations. That’s a huge victory in principle, but we’ll have to see whether it helps in practise. Strict scrutiny doesn’t mean we win, it just makes it easier for us to win.