This is the fifth and final installment of a five part series discussing the lawsuit seeking to prohibit the use of New York State funds in the construction of the Buffalo Bills’ new stadium. (Part I can be found here; Part II can be found here. Part III can be found here. Part IV can be found here.) As the final segment of the series, this article will predict how the Supreme Court of the United States will act on the lawsuit seeking to invalidate the use of public funds in the construction of the Buffalo Bills’ new stadium.
- Current attempt by activists to invalidate the use of state funds for the new Buffalo Bills stadium.
After the Court of Appeals dismissed the suit for lack of a constitutional issue, [1] the plaintiffs in In Re Schulz then looked to federal courts for an opportunity to assert their claim. In the first week of March 2024, these plaintiffs submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court with the hope that the Court will consider their lawsuit. This lawsuit—needing a federal question to gain jurisdiction in federal court—is not based on New York’s constitutional prohibition on providing gifts and loans to private entities. Rather, this new lawsuit argues that New York violated the U.S. Constitution’s “republican guarantee”, and claims that the New York State government has to abide by the state constitution. [2] The plaintiffs also allege that the courts in the New York failed to uphold the “republican guarantee” by ruling against them, and therefore the plaintiffs could only rectify their situation through federal courts. [3] Directly referencing Judge Pigott’s dissent in Bordeleau, one of the plaintiffs—Robert Schulz, said “[New York] can’t use public money in aid of a private undertaking by a private corporation. [It’s] doing indirectly what the Constitution prohibits them from doing directly.” [4] In their suit, the plaintiffs are arguing that the New York Constitution is being ignored by state politicians who wish to use public funds to construct the Bills stadium, which will be used to benefit team owner Terry Pegula. [5]
The plaintiffs argue that the Bills ownership should be responsible for refunding the amount of public funds already spent. [6] It is not, however, guaranteed that the Supreme Court will hear the plaintiffs’ case. The only way the Supreme Court will entertain the merits of the plaintiffs’ case is if four justices agree that the issue is worth considering. [7] Moreover, the Supreme Court may dismiss the suit because the plaintiffs failed to previously raise the issue of New York’s violation of the Constitution’s “republican guarantee.” This means that the Supreme Court could refuse to grant the plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari without even considering the merit of their arguments. [8]
Conclusion
Despite their numerous attempts, the activists’ assertions that the appropriation of state funds for the construction of a new Buffalo Bills’ stadium violates the New York State Constitution have been rejected by the courts in every case that has come before them. Case law establishes that the construction of a stadium is a public benefit because it attracts economic opportunities and community involvement. While team ownership will surely receive a benefit, New York courts have found that any private benefit is acceptable, so long as it is incidental and the project’s predominant purpose aids the larger public. Moreover, the State’s prohibition on gifts and loans is not violated when public benefit corporations direct state funds to private business because the legislature has the power to appropriate funding to it. Courts within the State of New York are clear – the financing of sports-related construction projects do not violate the state constitution’s prohibition on using state funds for gifts or loans.
[1] See Schulz v. State, 2023 N.Y. LEXIS 1778, at *1 (Oct. 19, 2023)( “Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court[] sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.”).
[2] See Dan Murphy, Can Progressives & Conservatives Agree? New Yorkers Taxpayer Lawsuit Against Public Funds for Bills Stadium Heads to USSC, Yonkers Times (Mar. 14, 2024), https://yonkerstimes.com/can-progressives-conservatives-agree-new-yorkers-taxpayer-lawsuit-against-public-funds-for-bills-stadium-heads-to-ussc/. See id.
[3] See id.
[4] See id. See also Judge Pigott’s dissent in Bordeleau for more information.
[5] See id.
[6] See id.
[7] Amy Howe, The Certiorari Process: Seeking Supreme Court Review, SCOTUSblog (2020), ttps://www.scotusblog.com/election-law-explainers/the-certiorari-process-seeking-supreme-court-review/.
[8] See id.
Leave a Reply