Selected Internet blog posts for the week ending June 5, 2026

The Q2 2026 issue of Governing Magazine is out now. This edition takes on resilience from every angle — vanishing federal infrastructure grants, the true cost of ransomware attacks, the Colorado River crisis, and how local officials are preparing for disaster. Read It Now

How Cities Use AI To Rethink Transit Systems Listen to host Andrei Greenawalt discuss how cities are expanding economic opportunity through smart transportation. Listen Now

Solving AI Governance Across the Public Sector Many agencies are trying to create AI policies while employees are already using AI tools. This executive brief examines the operational realities behind AI governance, including how organizations can uncover hidden usage, clarify ownership, and manage risk without slowing down productivity. DOWNLOAD

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Hall, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the September 30, 2025 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Tiffany Vesterman, a former employee of the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), challenges the constitutionality of the DOE’s denial of her religious accommodation request from New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate (the “Vaccine Mandate”). Vesterman alleges that she applied for a religious accommodation to the Vaccine Mandate in September 2021, specifically seeking to be exempted from the mandate based on her Catholic faith. The DOE denied Vesterman’s request and, after placing her on unpaid leave, 3 terminated her employment. Subsequently, Vesterman learned that the DOE placed her fingerprints in a “problem code” database, which she asserts stigmatized her for committing misconduct and prevented her from working in education thereafter. Vesterman now appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing her claims against Defendants-Appellees DOE and DOE Chancellor David C. Banks (collectively “Defendants”). Vesterman, a teacher with the DOE since 2001, alleges that Defendants violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by denying her a religious exemption from the Vaccine Mandate. She further argues that Defendants violated her procedural due process rights by placing her information in the problem code database without first providing her with a name-clearing hearing. Finally, she contends that the district court erred in dismissing her complaint with prejudice. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. “We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting all of the complaint’s non-conclusory factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor.” Honickman v. BLOM 4 Bank SAL, 6 F.4th 487, 495 (2d Cir. 2021) (alteration adopted and internal quotation marks omitted). “We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether dismissal of a complaint should be with prejudice.” Cruz v. FXDirectDealer, LLC, 720 F.3d 115, 125 (2d Cir. 2013). I. First Amendment Vesterman first brings an as-applied challenge to the Vaccine Mandate, alleging that the DOE violated her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by denying her request to be exempted from vaccination without first demonstrating that granting such accommodation would impose an undue hardship. “The First Amendment forbids the enactment of laws, either state or federal, that ‘prohibit the free exercise’ of religion.” We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, 17 F.4th 266, 280 (2d Cir.) (per curiam) (alteration adopted) (quoting U.S. Const., amend. I), opinion clarified, 17 F.4th 368 (2d Cir. 2021). “But not all laws that burden an individual’s exercise of religion contravene this...

New York Public Personnel Law

Message History

Delivery option(s)