Lawsuit Over Eruv in the Hamptons and American Legal Precedent

After local governments in the Hamptons rejected a proposal to construct an eruv, the East End Eruv Association filed a lawsuit in federal court this past week alleging religious discrimination and a violation of the constitutional rights of observant Jewish residents. (Click here for the story, and here for a copy of the complaint.) Although local governments are often accommodating of eruvin, this is certainly not the first time a group seeking to construct an eruv has been met with resistance. (Click here for an informative blog about eruvin, including numerous examples of eruvin in the news.)

Perhaps the most notable American legal case involving an eruv is Tenafly Eruv Association, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 942 (2003). In that case, a Tenafly ordinance prohibited the placing of “any sign or advertisement, or other matter upon any pole . . . in any public street or public place.” The Eruv Association, unaware of this ordinance, began to construct an eruv by affixing lechis (thin strips of plastic) on telephone poles within the borders of Tenafly. After the borough ordered that the lechis be removed due to the ordinance, the Eruv Association sued for an injunction that would prevent Tenafly from interfering with the eruv.

The plaintiffs (the Eruv Association and several Tenafly residents) asserted two claims: (1) preventing them from constructing an eruv violated their constitutional right to free speech; and (2) the borough violated the plaintiffs’ rights to free exercise of religion by discriminating in its enforcement of the ordinance on the basis of religion. The court rejected the first claim because it found that an eruv is not expressive. It does not communicate any idea or message, but rather delineates an area in which certain activities are permitted. However, the Eruv Association’s second claim was successful. The court found that Tenafly did not enforce the ordinance neutrally. It had tolerated similar violations of the ordinance (such as house numbers nailed to poles), but discriminated “against the plaintiffs’ religiously motivated conduct.” For this reason, the Third Circuit granted the injunction and banned the borough from removing the lechis.

Although the Tenafly decision is not binding on a federal court in NY, the court in the East End Eruv Association case will likely consider it in its determination. Either way, it will be interesting to see how this case develops, especially because the attorney who represented the Tenafly Eruv Association, Robert Sugarman of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, is also representing the East End Eruv Association in this case.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under American Law, News

6 responses to “Lawsuit Over Eruv in the Hamptons and American Legal Precedent

  1. Esther

    Towns usually allow people to put up signs on the poles for election campains or garage sales for example. Doesn’t that conflict with their complaint against the eruv?

  2. Zev

    If the town objects, how will the eruv function halakhically? A usual element is the permission of the town to carry, since they own the streets and have rights to enter buildings. Without this element, won’t the non-Jewish or non-observant residents of the eruv destroy the functionality of the eruv?

    • From my not so extensive knowledge on this subject, it would seem that the opposition from the municipal authorities and the non-Jewish/non-observant residents does in fact create significant halachic problems. For further information on this topic, I suggest you see “Eruvin in Modern Metropolitan Areas,” a pamphlet by Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, available in full online (click here). Especially relevant to your query is Part III.4, “Sechiras Reshus in Public and Urban Areas.”

  3. Sheryl

    Josh works at Weil Gotshall & Manges! The other frum guy that just started with him is doing a lot of work on this case!

  4. There are halachic ways to circumvent such situations. One can bypass local government officials and instead seek out state and federal authorities.

  5. Pingback: Attorney Warns Quogue Village Not To Reject Eruv Application | Jewish and American Law: The JLaw.com Blog

Your Comment:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s