Sunday Closing Laws and New Year's Eve

A federal court holds that New York can restrict alcohol sales when NYE falls on a Sunday

UPDATED: Not sure what happened when I tried to post before, but here's what I was trying to say:

It may be hard for people to believe, but even the city that doesn't sleep occasionally takes a break from drinking. A longstanding NY State law prohibits bars from selling alcohol from 4:00 to 10:00 AM on Sundays (and from 4:00 to 8:00 AM on weekdays). The state liquor authority grants all-night permits on an exceptional basis--but never, as the song says, on Sunday.

This year, New Year's falls on a Sunday, and Eris Evolution, a bar in Brooklyn, wishes to serve alcohol all night. The state liquor authority has declined to give the bar a permit, and Eris Evolution has sued in federal court, arguing that the NY restriction violates the Establishment Clause.

Last month, the Eastern District of New York ruled for the state. Judge Block reasoned that NY's rule was constitutional under McGowan v. Maryland (1961), in which the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the constitutionality of Sunday closing laws generally. The McGowan Court reasoned that, while Sunday closing laws originated in a desire to maintain the Christian sabbath, they had long since become secular in nature--a way for the state to promote a uniform day of rest and relaxation.

In our latest Legal Spirits podcast, my colleague, Marc DeGirolami, discuss the NY case and the Court's jurisprudence regarding Sunday closing laws more generally. How has the Court's treatment of Sunday closing laws affected the way Americans perceive Sunday today? And what are the prospects for new Sunday closing laws?

Eris Evolution has appealed, and by the time you read this, the Second Circuit may have weighed in. Meanwhile, listen to our podcast--and Happy New Year!

Comments

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Apparently an open and shut case.

[bernard11]

Well done.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Thanks, but then he noticed and corrected the mistake and ruined my joke 🙂

[Dr. Ed 2]

4 AM seems reasonable -- Maine is 1 AM statewide.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

I personally don't see why the government has any business telling a business it has to close, as long as it's not disturbing anyone else.

[Bored Lawyer]

The McGowan Court reasoned that, while Sunday closing laws originated in a desire to maintain the Christian sabbath, they had long since become secular in nature–a way for the state to promote a uniform day of rest and relaxation.

And how does the law at issue here do that? It only applies to bars, not any other business, and only during certain hours of the day. Seems far afield from the justification.

In NJ, we have blue laws in Bergen County. But there are many exceptions -- restaurants, supermarkets, gas stations, etc. So the universal rest day theory seems forced.

[Bored Lawyer]

Well, at least you got in the spririt of the thing.

[bernard11]

Moved.

[tkamenick]

In Wisconsin, car dealerships have their own blue law. It's really weird.

[John F. Carr]

The car dealer blue laws were passed to benefit salesmen who wanted a day off work.

[JasonT20]

The McGowan Court reasoned that, while Sunday closing laws originated in a desire to maintain the Christian sabbath, they had long since become secular in nature–a way for the state to promote a uniform day of rest and relaxation.

I read this as saying, “Well, there have been laws that obviously had people following Christian traditions and practices whether they were Christian or not for so long, that it doesn’t actually impose religion on them anymore.”

In other words, it is complete bullshit, and they know it. It’s the same thing with In God We Trust on money or “Under God” in the Pledge or 30ft crosses on a road median. They know that they can’t convince people that starting that now would be “secular in nature,” so they just grandfather it in as “tradition.”

[ReaderY]

It’s not bullshit at all. There’s obviously a secular purpose in requiring businesses to let people have a day off. Businesses forcing their employees to work 24/7, or business owners being forced by competition to do so themselves by competition, until they drop from exhaustion with no time for their families has obvious health , safety, welfare, and morals implications.

While the Supreme Court provided for an absolute freedom of contract in Lockner, Lockner has been rejected for some time and it’s been clear for decades that stated can limit work hours. Providing for a particular time when businesses have to close is merely one way of doing that. And a common time makes complete secular sense. It lets people socialize and funcction as a community.

You might as well argue that welfare violates the Establishment Claise. You would be making the same argument. Welfare serves no purpose other than providing for the poor. Amd if you believe the only reason anyone would want to do that is because Christianity says to, it can serve no non-religious purpose. The flaw is the belief that the only reason anyone would want to do this is that Christianity says to. Same here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The car dealer blue laws were passed to benefit salesmen who wanted a day off work.

Because car salesmen are much more influential and well-organized than other salesmen -- or powerful in any respect?

My sense -- which draws in part from another industry shackled by blue laws and in part from a fraternity brother who represents automobile dealers -- is that owners of automobile dealerships like blue laws because they have concluded that automobile demand is relatively inelastic, and that they can save a weekly dose of operating expenses at relatively low cost. The staff's preferences (they might prefer to take a shot at a commission on Sunday rather than on Tuesday morning) do not appear to be part of the consideration.

[KenveeB]

But somehow it's only bars and other alcohol-related businesses that have these requirements. Other businesses don't get that restriction. So it's not prompted by concern for employees, it's because of the nature of what they're selling. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

[David Nieporent]

Reason's comment system is currently broken and won't let us respond directly to a comment, so this is a response to ReaderY's comment:

There’s obviously a secular purpose in requiring businesses to let people have a day off. Businesses forcing their employees to work 24/7, or business owners being forced by competition to do so themselves by competition, until they drop from exhaustion with no time for their families has obvious health , safety, welfare, and morals implications.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct and that these laws are actually about employee welfare, there's no secular purpose in requiring that everyone take Sunday off.

New York has a law that says that employers shall give employees 1 day off per week. ("at least twenty-four consecutive hours of rest in each and every calendar week" is how it's phrased. There are, of course, various exceptions.) It does not require that it be the same day, let alone that it be Sunday. Which makes a lot more sense, since staggering the days off allows businesses to stay open seven days which allows people to patronize those businesses on their days off. Which is a benefit for employee welfare.

[The Angry Hippopotamus]

I'm not a lawyer and don't think laws like this should exist; however, in an appeal to the Second Circuit for the U.S. Court of Appeals, how would Eris Evolution get around Amendment XXI Section 2:

"...or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited"

Doesn't this essentially say, "It's up to the States to determine their liquor laws"?

[Bored Lawyer]

The Angry Hippopotamus:

True, the states can determine their own liquor laws, but that's not a free pass to violate other parts of the Constitution. Can a state pass a law providing that only Republicans, or only Catholics, or only white people, can sell liquor? Each of these run afoul of some other Constitutional prohibition.

[Bored Lawyer]

New York has a law that says that employers shall give employees 1 day off per week. (“at least twenty-four consecutive hours of rest in each and every calendar week” is how it’s phrased. There are, of course, various exceptions.) It does not require that it be the same day, let alone that it be Sunday. Which makes a lot more sense, since staggering the days off allows businesses to stay open seven days which allows people to patronize those businesses on their days off. Which is a benefit for employee welfare.

Yes and no. Employees get a day off, true, but it can be different days. If father has off on Tuesdays, mother on Thursdays, and children on weekends, that makes it hard for family to get together. So there is a secular purposes in having one uniform day off.

[JasonT20]

It’s not bullshit at all. There’s obviously a secular purpose in requiring businesses to let people have a day off. Businesses forcing their employees to work 24/7, or business owners being forced by competition to do so themselves by competition, until they drop from exhaustion with no time for their families has obvious health , safety, welfare, and morals implications.

Uh, yeah. That is why there are no businesses allowed to be open 24/7, I suppose? Oh, wait, that isn't true at all. Businesses that want to be open 7 days a week and for long hours can, I don't know, hire more people, some of whom are willing to have their day(s) off be days other than Sunday. There seems to have been some movement for a 40 hour work week at some point in history, too.

Providing for a particular time when businesses have to close is merely one way of doing that. And a common time makes complete secular sense. It lets people socialize and funcction as a community.

And why Sunday? The Supreme Court in McGowan seems to have admitted that it was about observing the Christian Sabbath. Jews already had their own day of rest on Saturdays, so I guess being ~1% of the population meant that it was more logical to make it the same as the overwhelming majority of the population. But again, why make it a law? And making it a law to not sell alcohol on Sundays, while virtually every other kind of business can be open, such as gas stations and supermarkets, and all types of entertainment kind of undercuts the whole community day of rest justification, doesn't it? Sure, I can 'rest' by going to a movie on a Sunday, but that means that there are people working at the movie theater.

You might as well argue that welfare violates the Establishment Claise. You would be making the same argument.

That is preposterous. That would be nothing like what I am arguing. Using the government to force a particular kind of business not to operate on a day that the majority religion deems to be a day for going to church is not the same thing as welfare.

That someone could, post hoc, come up with some attempt at justifying not selling alcohol on Sundays that wasn't based on religion doesn't change the fact that it was originally put in place because people in government at the time wanted the law to line up with their religious beliefs. And there is still no secular reason to have In God We Trust on money or have "under God" be part of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I call this bullshit because it is nothing more than some Christians trying to justify using the government to promote their religion as the default belief system for the whole country. If that wasn't what they wanted, then there wouldn't be some Christians that get upset whenever someone with different beliefs tries to take advantage of the same privileges. Want to put up a pagan display on public land next to the nativity scenes? Get ready for some Christians to go apeshit over that. Want to teach yoga in a public school? Get ready for some Christians to go apeshit over that. Have a Hindu priest say the prayer at the start of the day in a house of Congress? Get ready for some Christians to go apeshit over that.

The force with which they will defend their privilege to have government promote and support their beliefs due to being in the majority betrays just how much they want it to be an exclusive privilege for them.