## Facts

- A New York delicatessen and butcher shop marketed foods as kosher under Conservative rabbinical supervision.
- New York enacted the Kosher Law Protection Act of 2004, regulating sellers who represent food as “kosher” through disclosure, posting, and recordkeeping requirements, enforced by the state agriculture agency’s kosher enforcement unit.
- The statute did not define “kosher” or require compliance with any denominational standard; it required sellers to disclose the basis for their kosher representation and identify the certifier/supervisor.
- The plaintiffs sued state officials and the State of New York in federal court, alleging the Act violated the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and due process because it was vague.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Kosher Law Protection Act of 2004 violates the Establishment Clause by lacking a secular purpose, having a primary effect that advances religion, or creating excessive church-state entanglement.
2. Whether the Act violates the Free Exercise Clause by burdening or favoring particular religious practices or denominations.
3. Whether the Act’s disclosure, recordkeeping, and inspection provisions are unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The Act had a secular consumer-protection purpose and did not define “kosher” or adopt religious doctrine as law.
- The Act’s primary effect was to require truthful disclosure and enable informed consumer choice, not to advance or inhibit religion.
- The Act did not create excessive entanglement because enforcement focused on verifying required disclosures and consistency with a seller’s own representations, not resolving religious questions.
- The Act was neutral and generally applicable; any burden on religious practice was incidental and justified under rational-basis review by the state’s interest in preventing fraud.
- The Act provided adequate notice of required conduct and sufficient enforcement standards, so it was not void for vagueness.

## Legal Principles

- Under Establishment Clause analysis, a law is permissible where it serves a secular purpose, has a primarily secular effect, and does not require governmental resolution of religious doctrine or continuous religious oversight.
- A disclosure-based regulatory scheme addressing religiously labeled goods may be constitutional when it regulates truthful marketing and transparency rather than defining or enforcing theological standards.
- Under Free Exercise doctrine, neutral and generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious practice are ordinarily valid if rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
- A statute is not unconstitutionally vague if it gives fair notice of required conduct and contains standards that limit arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement, including when First Amendment concerns are asserted.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld New York’s kosher disclosure and recordkeeping law as a secular consumer-protection measure that avoids theological determinations, concluding it does not violate the Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause and is sufficiently definite to satisfy due process.


Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, 680 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2012)