NYC: Horse Carriage Ban Federal Lawsuit Planned Over Romanch's Law

• The New York City Council passed Romanch's Law, banning horse-drawn carriages by June 2028, with a 40-7 veto-proof majority.
• The ban followed incidents including the fatal throwing of a tourist and the death of a carriage horse.
• Carriage drivers, represented by the Transport Workers Union, plan to file a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York.
• The lawsuit will allege violations of Fifth Amendment due process and state constitutional rights, citing the city's failure to address economic impact.
• Attorney Arthur Schwartz referenced the 1943 Good Humor Corp. v. City of New York ruling as precedent against total bans on livelihoods.

The core legal argument asserts that the city cannot deprive individuals of their property without adhering to due process, especially when the alleged public nuisance justification is absent.

The New York City Council recently enacted a ban on horse-drawn carriages, a tradition spanning over a century in Central Park. This legislative action, known as Romanch's Law, passed with a significant veto-proof majority of 40-7 votes, despite sustained opposition from carriage drivers over several months. The ban is slated to take effect in June 2028, leaving the industry with a five-year window before its complete cessation.

The passage of this bill has prompted the affected drivers to prepare for a robust legal challenge in federal court. With Mayor Zohran Mamdani expected to sign the legislation into law in the coming weeks, the industry views the judicial system as its final recourse to prevent the elimination of their livelihood. The impending NYC horse carriage ban federal lawsuit is poised to contest the city's authority to impose such a sweeping prohibition without adequately addressing the economic repercussions for those involved.

Arthur Schwartz, an attorney representing the Transport Workers Union (TWU), which includes the carriage drivers, has confirmed plans to file a federal complaint in the Southern District of New York. This Transport Workers Union lawsuit will allege violations of both the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. The central tenet of their argument is that the city cannot seize or diminish property rights without due process, particularly when there is no claim that the horses constitute a public nuisance.

Schwartz emphasized that while governments possess the power to regulate businesses and implement reasonable measures to prevent abuses, the outright removal of property for no reason that bears any relationship to the welfare of the public is unconstitutional. He cited the 1943 New York Court of Appeals ruling in Good Humor Corp. v. City of New York, which prevented the city from imposing a total ban on itinerant peddling, as a relevant Good Humor Corp v City of New York precedent. This case is expected to be a key reference point in the Romanch's Law challenge, as the drivers seek a federal judge to declare the legislation unconstitutional, thereby compelling the city to reconsider its stance or abandon the ban. The Fifth Amendment due process NYC argument will be central to their claims regarding property rights.

The impetus for Romanch's Law followed a series of incidents that brought the horse carriage industry into the national spotlight. Earlier this year, an 18-year-old tourist, Romanch Mahajan, was fatally thrown from a carriage after a horse bolted. This tragedy occurred shortly after a 16-year-old carriage horse named Deniz collapsed and died from sudden cardiac arrest on June 9, intensifying calls for a ban from animal rights activists.

Carriage driver and TWU shop steward Christina Hansen acknowledged the gravity of these incidents but expressed concern that the city did not thoroughly explore alternatives before passing the law. The ban's implementation creates significant uncertainty for the approximately 150 active carriage drivers in New York City, who face questions about future employment, income stability, and even their ability to maintain housing. Beyond the drivers, the legislation threatens the viability of Manhattan stables and could render carriage medallions, which some owners purchased for as much as $400,000, effectively worthless. The city has indicated it will develop a plan for economic fallout in the coming months, but the legislation currently lacks specific provisions for compensation.

Prior to the City Council vote, Arthur Schwartz had formally warned the New York City Law Department of impending litigation should Romanch's Law pass. In response, a spokesperson for the department affirmed confidence in the legality of the legislation and stated their readiness to defend it in court. The anticipated federal lawsuit will therefore pit the city's legislative authority against the constitutional property rights claims of the carriage industry.

The outcome of this legal battle, particularly the NYC horse carriage ban federal lawsuit, could have significant implications beyond this specific industry. It will test the boundaries of municipal power to enact bans that profoundly impact established businesses and individual livelihoods, especially when questions of economic impact and due process are at the forefront. The drivers' hope is that a federal judge will recognize the constitutional deficiencies they allege, forcing a reevaluation of the ban.

Lawyers advising clients in regulated industries should monitor this federal lawsuit challenging the NYC horse carriage ban on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, as its outcome could set a precedent for municipal actions impacting property rights and economic livelihoods without adequate compensation or due process.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service