⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit hears a lawsuit by former New York City police officers over COVID-19 vaccination requirements. Their complaint says they were fired or forced to retire after declining vaccination. They argue the city enforced the rule against them while treating others more favorably. They point to exemptions for professional athletes and performers, and what they describe as a failure to enforce the private-sector mandate. The district court dismissed their case, concluding they had not identified an adequate comparison group for their selective-enforcement claim. The people or groups used for that comparison are called comparators. They need not be identical, but their circumstances must bear a reasonably close resemblance in relevant respects. The officers will contend that shared exposure to pandemic risk makes them comparable to unvaccinated people outside the city workforce. The city will argue that its relationship with its own employees, and their role in providing city services, justify different treatment. Selective enforcement also requires an impermissible motive for the difference; unequal results alone are not enough. Here, the officers rely on alleged malice or ill will, often called animus. The city will dispute that their complaint plausibly shows such a motive. At this pleading stage, the question is whether their factual allegations state a plausible legal claim, not whether they have already proved it at trial. The argument concerns constitutional discrimination, not a general review of whether pandemic policy was wise.

McCartney v. City of New York (No. 25-2535) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 23, 2026.