## Facts

- New York City historically regulated taxicabs under legislative delegation, including a regime in which only “medallion” taxicabs could accept street hails; livery vehicles generally could not.
- The Legislature enacted the 2012 HAIL Act to address asserted service and accessibility deficiencies in New York City’s for-hire transportation system, including limited outer-borough street-hail service and low wheelchair accessibility.
- The Act authorized the City to issue up to 18,000 “HAIL licenses” permitting eligible livery vehicles to accept street hails outside Manhattan’s central business district and outside airport zones, while preserving medallion taxis’ exclusive street-hail rights in the central business district and at airports.
- The Act also authorized new “street hail accessible medallions” for wheelchair-accessible taxicabs and conditioned portions of the licensing rollout on approval of a Disabled Accessibility Plan by the State Department of Transportation.
- Medallion owners and associations sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the Act improperly displaced City authority and unconstitutionally favored livery interests.

## Issues

1. Whether the HAIL Act violated the Municipal Home Rule Clause of the New York Constitution by legislating on New York City’s “property, affairs or government” without a home-rule message or a valid substantial state concern basis.
2. Whether the HAIL Act violated the New York Constitution’s “double enactment” requirement applicable to certain local or special laws.
3. Whether the HAIL Act violated the Exclusive Privileges Clause by granting an unconstitutional exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise to HAIL licensees or related livery interests.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment that invalidated the Act and declared the HAIL Act constitutional.
- The court held the Act did not violate the Municipal Home Rule Clause because it was enacted in furtherance of substantial state interests, including transportation policy and disability-access objectives.
- The court held the double-enactment requirement did not invalidate the Act where the legislation was justified by substantial state concerns rather than solely local “property, affairs or government.”
- The court held the Act did not grant a prohibited exclusive privilege because it created a generally applicable regulatory licensing framework open to qualifying applicants, while leaving medallion taxis’ core exclusivity in the central business district and airports intact.

## Legal Principles

- State legislation affecting a locality may be enacted without a home-rule message when the Legislature addresses a substantial state concern and the law is reasonably related to that concern.
- The double-enactment restriction applicable to certain local or special laws does not bar state legislation grounded in a substantial state interest rather than purely municipal internal affairs.
- A statute does not violate the Exclusive Privileges Clause merely because it confers economic advantages on a class of regulated actors; the clause targets closed or particularized grants of exclusive privileges, not open licensing schemes structured by general eligibility criteria.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals upheld the HAIL Act, concluding that statewide transportation and disability-access objectives justified state intervention in New York City’s street-hail licensing regime and that the Act neither triggered invalid home-rule or double-enactment defects nor created an unconstitutional exclusive privilege.


Greater N.Y. Taxi Ass’n v. State, 21 N.Y.3d 289 (N.Y. 2013)