According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are the $45.2 million Boulevard Federal Credit Union in Amherst, which has approximately 115 outstanding judgements and is owed about $1.5 million, $530,000 of which is accrued interest; the $91.3 million Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union in Falconer, which is owed $1.3 million, $390,000 of which is accrued interest; and the $74.1 million Greater Niagara Federal Credit Union in Niagara Falls, which has more than 110 outstanding judgements and is owed more than $1 million, $360,000 of which is accrued interest.

The credit unions challenged what they characterize as the threatened violation of federal law – an unconstitutional regulatory taking of their vested interest in accrued post-judgement interest.

The credit unions argued that the application of the retroactive amendment of the New York law would constitute an impermissible taking of property without just compensation under the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, and that post-judgment interest is a constitutionally protected property interest.

In her ruling, Judge Vyskocil noted that the state law would be a regulatory taking that involves government regulation of private property that is "so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster. Thus, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."

However, Judge Vyskocil concluded that the credit unions have demonstrated a likelihood of winning their case based, in part, on a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, which weighs in favor of the credit unions' Constitutional argument that prohibits the taking of property without just compensation.

What's more, the credit unions also argued that the application of the retroactive amendment violated the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment of substantive due process because the retroactive application of the law has no limits, the change in law upsets 40 years of expectation and lenders will respond to the law by reducing services and products for consumers, thereby harming them.

Nevertheless, in her ruling, Judge Vyskocil wrote that the substantive due process claim does not need to be addressed because the credit unions have shown a clear likelihood of winning their lawsuit based on their takings clause claim, and that the relief sought is the same under either claim.

She also concluded that the credit unions have "clearly established" that without a preliminary injunction they would suffer irreparable harm because the credit unions would not be entitled to money damages, but they may be entitled to injunctive relief that would prevent the retroactive amendment of the state law from being enforced.

The lawsuit's defendants included three New York state sheriff's departments in the counties where the credit unions are based because the sheriffs would be responsible for enforcing the state law amendment. Lawrence K. Marks, chief administrative judge of New York State Courts, was also named as a defendant.

Lawyers representing the sheriffs initially argued against injunctive relief but later clarified they do not oppose any injunction because it would indemnify them, in their opinion.

The sheriffs' lawyers argued that sovereign immunity bars the lawsuit. They also argued that the alleged injury or harm alleged by the credit unions is not fairly traceable to them or to Judge Marks.

But Judge Vyskocil also concluded that the sovereign immunity argument does not bar the class action suit, and that the sheriffs are clearly connected to the enforcement of the state's retroactive amendment and will remain as the defendants.

However, she determined Judge Marks could not be held as a defendant because by its plain language, the state's retroactive amendment does not require anything from Judge Marks.