קען זיין דאס וועט בעקפייערן אדער ווערן גטשעלענדשעד אין קאורט פאר נאך אפאר יאר, מדארף ווארטן אויף וויאזוי די סטעיט וועט אפלערנען די געזעץ
די ארגינעלע געזעץ איז געווען אז די אחריות ליגט אויפן לאקאלע סקול דיסטריקט, דאס איז געווען נפתלי מאסטער ערשטע מהלך גיין צום עדיוקעשאן קאמישינער פון די סיטי
איז געקומען די פעלדער געזעץ אין עס געשטופט צו די סטעיט און ארויפגעלייגט די אחריות אויפן סטעיט עדיוקעישאן קאמישינער, וואס דאס איז געווען א טעות מצד די מוסדות ווייל למעשה איז די סטעיט זייער שארף געווען מיט די סאבסטענשאל עקיווילינסי געזעץ
למעשה מיט די נייע געזעץ האלטן לויערס אז מען האט אוועקגענומען די מאכט פון די סטעיט קאמישינער קוק
דא
אזוי צי אזוי האט די געזעץ געגעבן אסאך צייט און אפארטאניטיס זיך צי שלאגן אין קארט אויף אסאך זאכן אז די אקטיוויסטן און די סטעיט וועלן אויסלויפן פון געדולד און אראפקריכן פון די נושא, קוק וואס איז געשען מיט נפתלי אליין
די קאמישינער בלייבט אויך נישט אויף איר פאזיציע פאר אייביג, די נעקסטע קאמישינער וועט זעהן אז דאס איז א שווערע מערכה און עס שטופן אונטער׳ן באס
דאס איז מיין קורצע שמועס מיט GPT
1. Ongoing Lawsuits Already Challenging Yeshiva Oversight
2. New Budget Rider Raises Fresh Legal Issues
This “policy hijack”
gives yeshivas flexibility to sidestep meaningful reform and may embolden them to claim:
- The state stretched the rider's scope too far—even beyond what the Court of Appeals permitted;
- With new accreditation options, yeshivas won’t comply in substance, only “in form”; and
- The rider itself may be vulnerable to challenge as a bad-faith appropriation grafted into the budget.
3. Potential Legal Avenue #1: Rider Overreach
- Courts could scrutinize whether the legislature exceeded statutory authority by redefining substantial equivalency within the budget.
- Given past rulings limiting enforcement (e.g., no closures), the rider may be argued as a policy reshaping that went too far without proper rulemaking or hearings.
4. Legal Avenue #2: Predictive Non-compliance
- If yeshivas rely on weak accreditation or participation-only routes and still fail curricular substance, the state could take them back to court.
- Courts would then assess whether the new compliance methods truly ensure educational equivalence, or are just loopholes.
5. Legal Avenue #3: Civil Rights & Due Process
- PEARLS or SED could argue that by creating a built-in escape hatch, the legislature:
- Violates due process, because parents won't have clear standards;
- Undermines the state's responsibility under Article 65; or
- Could be challenged under Equal Protection (reshaping oversight for religious schools only).
Bottom Line
The budget rider isn't ironclad. Courts could invalidate parts of it, especially as appellate rulings have consistently trimmed back state enforcement.
Expect new lawsuits or amendments to existing ones based on rider language, legislative intent, and practical outcomes.
This strategy may backfire if courts see the rider as a legislative overstep designed to undermine the law—in which case it could be reversed or struck down.
Would you like a draft of possible legal arguments for future courtroom filings, or examples of similar budget riders struck down in other states?
Sources
You said:
Very interesting, so like in Trumpian times, can the governor or anyone in the assembly or Carl Heatie override again the court ruling or once they take a look at it, and fight it out, it would potnetionpotentially become ironclad?
ChatGPT said:
Excellent question—and yes, it’s kind of like the Trump era’s legal wrestling matches… except the New York version involves fewer gold escalators and more yeshiva boards and education lawyers.
Here’s how it works in
New York State’s checks-and-balances universe:
Can the Governor or Assembly Override a Court Ruling?
Short answer: No—not directly.
Once a court—especially the
New York State Court of Appeals (the highest court in NY)—issues a
constitutional ruling, it
cannot simply be overridden by the governor, Senate, or Assembly. The only ways around a ruling like that are:
- Appeal to a higher court (if applicable)
→ Not likely, since the Court of Appeals is already the state’s top dog.
- Legislative rewrite
→ Lawmakers can pass a new version of the law (or budget rider) that addresses the court’s objections.
Think of it like a reboot with less judicial baggage.
- State constitutional amendment
→ Extremely rare, but theoretically possible.
So What Could Carl Heastie, Hochul, or Senate Dems Actually Do?
Let’s say the courts shoot down parts of this budget-rider/yeshiva compromise. Here are their options:
| Option | Feasibility | Notes |
|---|
 Amend the budget bill again | Medium | Pass a clarified version that complies with the ruling. This is the go-to move. |
 Pass standalone education reform | Low | Risky. Could spark more public backlash, especially in swing areas. |
| Appeal the ruling | High | If SED or the state loses, they can appeal. But courts may still strike down evasive language. |
 Adjust executive enforcement | High | Hochul or the NYSED could technically stall or restrict enforcement without new laws. |
Is There a “Trumpian” Loophole Like Executive Orders?
In
spirit, yes—but in
structure, no.
- Governors can’t override courts with executive orders the way presidents sometimes try to do.
- But budget negotiations and riders are New York’s version of the “power flex.”
- That’s what this $254B omnibus budget attempt was about—sneaking reform rollbacks into fiscal law.
So if the court rules against it, the governor or Assembly would
have to find a new legal workaround, not just wave a pen.
Final Thought:
If the court strikes down the rider or yeshiva carveouts and finds they violate the
substantial equivalency standard, any attempt to override that
without fixing the legal reasoning would likely get swatted down again.
So no—
once the judiciary rules, it’s not “ironclad,” but it does become the
new high ground.
Want a side-by-side of the rider language versus what courts ruled in the past? Or examples of other bills rewritten post-court loss in NY history?
Tools
Instead:
