Lamel Jeffery, et al. v. City of New York, New York, et al.

The freedom of movement is “a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.” U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758 (1966). It is “a right so elementary,” id., that when it is "curtailed” in the form of a “curfew or home detention,” “all other rights suffer.” Aptheker v. Sec'y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 520 (1964)(Douglas, J., dissenting). This Court has made clear that any action that touches upon such a fundamental right requires the government to “prove with evidence,” Mast v. Fillmore Cnty., Minnesota, 141 S. Ct. 2430, 2433 (2021)(Gorsuch, J., concurring), that the action, 1) is necessary to serve a compelling need;

1. will “in fact” address this need in a “direct and material way,” Turner Broad. System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 664 (1994); and, 3) that no “less restrictive means” exist to accomplish the same, Turner, 512 U.S. at 668. The Questions Presented are:

2. Whether the constitutionality of the largest mass curfew in American history can be determined at the pleading stage in the absence of record evidence based solely upon the government’s declaration of an emergency.

3. Whether the factual predicate required to scrutinize an abridgment of fundamental rights can be exclusively supplied by judicially noticing “facts” contained in news and media coverage.