The recent $708 million lawsuit filed by New York City against bus companies used by Texas has raised considerable legal and ethical debates. These companies were involved in the purported smuggling of migrants across state lines. This action is noted to be in clear violation of New York Social Services Law §149, which financially penalizes anyone who knowingly transports an individual into New York with the purpose of making them a dependent of the public.
The vehemently vocal Texas governor, Greg Abbott, has made no secret of his intention to send migrants to other states, particularly, New York. His primary goal was to mitigate the financial burden his state was facing as a result of migrant influx. Texas wasn’t subtly purchasing anonymous Greyhound tickets either, but rather, charter bookings were made, making it virtually impossible for these bus companies to claim lack of knowledge regarding the people they were transporting and the purpose of their journey.
Enter respected GW Law professor Jonathan Turley. Turley has labelled the lawsuit frivolous and declared the law absurdly motivated by hypocrisy. He also debates the concept of a “sanctuary city”, a title that New York proudly upholds – stipulating that local law enforcement refuses to unlawfully act as federal assistants in immigration matters. However, the relevance of this concept to the current lawsuit is undecided, and Turley instead focuses his rhetoric on the constitutionality of New York Social Services Law §149.
Turley argues that the law poses unwarranted restrictions on the operations of bus companies, questioning the constitutionality of imposing liabilities on companies solely based on their clientele. He, however, chooses to overlook precedents set by other laws, like the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act and other similar state regulations. These laws create significant corporate liability for any entity, including hotels, casinos, and transportation companies, who ignore or indirectly support human trafficking.
To argue Turley’s point using his own wording, questions arise about how a company can determine if a person buying a bus ticket could potentially be a “public charge” or a victim of trafficking. The answer possibly lies in the intentions of the entity purchasing the tickets. When Governor Abbott openly states he is shifting the financial burden to another state through the transportation of migrants, the motivation becomes starkly apparent.
Therefore, it becomes a matter of debate whether or not Turley’s analysis of the New York Social Services Law holds water, given these considered arguments. The law exists to protect individuals and the city from exploitative intentions like those seen in this case. Thus, dismissing it as an ‘unconstitutional infringement’ might, after all, cover only one side of the coin.
For detailed insight, refer to the original article at Above The Law.