Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A woman was arrested by New York City police officers after they responded to a 911 call reporting an assault in progress related to a domestic dispute in Flushing, New York. Upon arrival, the officers spoke with the alleged victim’s son, who showed them injuries on his father’s arm and indicated that the woman had caused them by striking him with an umbrella. The father, standing beside his son, pointed to his injuries and demonstrated how the assault occurred. The officers photographed the injuries, and the woman was subsequently charged with assault and harassment. These charges were later dismissed.The woman then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asserting several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including false arrest, as well as state constitutional claims. The district court granted summary judgment for the officers on all claims except for the false arrest claim. The court denied qualified immunity to the officers on this claim, finding disputed issues of material fact regarding whether there was probable cause to arrest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity. The appellate court held that the district court erred, concluding that, when viewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the officers had arguable probable cause to arrest based on corroborated evidence: the 911 call, physical injuries, and the victim’s demonstration of the assault. The appellate court clarified that police are not required to assess the credibility of domestic violence victims more skeptically than other witnesses simply due to the familial context. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment to the officers on the false arrest claim. View "Jin v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, sought protection in the United States, claiming he would face persecution and torture if returned. His testimony before the immigration judge described being forcibly detained by members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a designated terrorist group, and compelled under threat to provide translation services during interrogations. After escaping LTTE custody, he was detained and allegedly beaten by the Sri Lankan army, then relocated within Sri Lanka before ultimately coming to the United States. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, finding that the petitioner provided material support to the LTTE by translating during interrogations, making him ineligible for asylum and withholding. The IJ determined his asylum application was untimely, found his claims of past persecution and fear of future harm insufficiently corroborated, and concluded he had not established entitlement to relief under CAT due to lack of evidence and his ability to relocate safely within Sri Lanka. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s denial based on the material support bar, dismissing his claims for asylum and withholding without addressing their merits, but upheld the IJ’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT on substantive grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the BIA erred by not determining whether the petitioner would be eligible for asylum or withholding of removal under the INA if the material support bar did not apply, as such a determination is necessary for the petitioner to seek a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security. The court granted the petition in part and remanded to the BIA for this determination, while denying review of the agency’s denial of withholding or deferral of removal under CAT. View "Sufiyan v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A teenage girl accused Dennis Sacaza of sexually assaulting her while on a crowded Metropolitan Transit Authority bus in Brooklyn. The incident was partially captured on video footage from the bus, which showed the complainant appearing uncomfortable and looking back at Sacaza several times, but did not definitively show any physical contact. After the complainant reported the alleged assault to her school and the police, Detective Michael Friedman conducted an investigation, including interviews, review of the bus footage, and a double-blind photo array, in which the complainant identified Sacaza twice. Sacaza was charged with several offenses, but the criminal case was ultimately dismissed on speedy trial grounds.Sacaza subsequently filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asserting claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of the right to a fair trial under federal and state law. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Detective Friedman was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted summary judgment on some claims but denied it on the federal false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, finding that questions of fact existed regarding whether there was arguable probable cause to arrest and charge Sacaza, given inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and the bus video.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of summary judgment de novo. The court held that Detective Friedman was entitled to qualified immunity because, based on the undisputed evidence, a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to arrest and charge Sacaza. The district court’s denial of summary judgment on the federal claims was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Friedman and for further proceedings regarding the state law claims. View "Sacaza v. City of New York" on Justia Law

A former corrections officer brought suit against several supervisory employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, alleging that his rights under the Equal Protection Clause were violated due to race discrimination and retaliation after he complained about such discrimination. He claimed that, while employed at Downstate Correctional Facility, he was denied requests for outside employment that were granted to white colleagues, suspended without pay in circumstances where white officers were suspended with pay, and barred from returning to work after filing discrimination and workplace violence complaints. The defendants disputed these allegations, offering alternative explanations for their actions and contesting whether Miller was similarly situated to the relevant comparators.After extensive discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to arguing that the summary judgment record did not reveal any material factual disputes, they asserted that, even on the pleadings, Miller failed to state a viable claim. Instead of evaluating the evidence produced during discovery, the district court considered only the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), effectively converting the summary judgment motion into a motion to dismiss.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court erred procedurally by disregarding the summary judgment record and resolving the dispute solely under the pleading standard after discovery had closed. The court explained that once discovery is complete and summary judgment is sought, the correct standard requires assessment of the record evidence, not just the pleadings. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying claims or the sufficiency of the evidence. View "Miller v. Lamanna" on Justia Law

A group of bondholders sought to recover principal payments owed on defaulted Argentine sovereign bonds. These investors had previously participated in Argentina’s Tax Credit Program, depositing their bonds with an Argentine trustee, Caja de Valores S.A., in exchange for certificates representing principal and interest. After the Republic failed to pay the principal at maturity, the bondholders initially sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That court dismissed the case primarily on the ground that, under Argentine law, only the trustee had authority to sue on the bonds, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The bondholders then obtained authorization from an Argentine court to sue and filed a new complaint in New York.The district court again dismissed their claims, mainly for two reasons. First, it found all claims were barred by New York’s six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, holding that the state’s “savings statute” (N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 205(a)) did not apply because the prior dismissal was for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also concluded that tolling provisions in New York’s COVID-era executive orders did not apply absent an equitable showing. Second, the court held that collateral estoppel barred the bondholders from relitigating issues related to standing and jurisdiction previously decided.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed that the savings statute did not apply but held that the COVID-era executive orders tolled the limitations period automatically, without any equitable showing. This made some claims timely (those on the AR16 Bonds) but not others (those on the GD65 Bonds). The Second Circuit further ruled that collateral estoppel did not preclude the bondholders from litigating whether they had authority to sue, and that—under Argentine law, with the new court authorization—they now had such authority. The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bugliotti v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

A resident of Puerto Rico suffered work-related injuries in 1994, resulting in permanent total disability. His employer and its insurance carrier were ordered to provide medical care under Section 7 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as extended by the Defense Base Act. In 2019, a Puerto Rico-licensed physician recommended medical cannabis-infused edibles to treat the petitioner’s chronic pain. The petitioner sought reimbursement for these products from the employer’s insurance carrier, which denied the request.The petitioner then asked the United States Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges to order reimbursement, arguing that medical cannabis was a reasonable and necessary treatment. The Administrative Law Judge denied the request, finding that marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) meant it could not have an accepted medical use under federal law. On appeal, the Department of Labor Benefits Review Board affirmed this decision by a 2-1 vote, agreeing that reimbursement was barred by the CSA and rejecting arguments that recent federal appropriations riders or executive actions altered the federal legal status of marijuana.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that because marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under the CSA, it cannot be considered a reasonable and necessary medical expense for purposes of reimbursement under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court found that neither appropriations riders nor recent executive or legislative actions had changed marijuana’s federal classification or its legal status under the Act. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was observed by New York City police officers driving without a seatbelt. When officers attempted to pull him over, he fled, eventually crashing into a parked car. After the crash, he fled on foot and was seen throwing a green bag over a fence into a construction lot across from a school. Inside the bag, officers later found a loaded firearm with a defaced serial number. The defendant’s photo identification and cell phone were found in the car. He was arrested about a month later during a scheduled meeting with probation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over the initial criminal proceedings, where the defendant was indicted, and a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Prior to trial, the government missed the court-ordered deadline for expert disclosures under Rule 16 but provided the DNA evidence report to the defense as soon as it was available. The district court found the government negligent but not in bad faith and offered the defendant a continuance, which he declined in favor of a one-day delay before trial. The jury convicted the defendant, and the court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 78 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the DNA evidence despite the late disclosure and whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence with a continuance, nor was the sentence unreasonable. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence in all respects. View "United States v. Aryeetey" on Justia Law

The case involves an individual who was assessed $50,000 in penalties by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for failing to report control of a foreign business during the tax years 2005 through 2009, as required by section 6038 of the Internal Revenue Code. The penalties were $10,000 for each year of the alleged reporting violation. When the individual did not pay, the IRS filed a notice of federal tax lien, which the taxpayer challenged through a Collection Due Process hearing before the IRS Independent Office of Appeals. After that challenge was unsuccessful, the taxpayer petitioned the United States Tax Court for relief.The United States Tax Court granted summary judgment in favor of the taxpayer. The Tax Court concluded that Congress had not granted the Commissioner statutory authority to collect the section 6038(b) penalty through administrative assessment, which is the process the IRS typically uses to record tax liabilities and activate collection powers such as liens and levies. The Tax Court ruled that, instead, the Commissioner would have to bring a lawsuit in federal district court to collect this penalty.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case on appeal. The Second Circuit disagreed with the Tax Court’s interpretation and held that the Commissioner does have authority to assess penalties under section 6038(b) through the administrative process. The appellate court found that the history, purpose, and structure of the statute support the conclusion that the penalty is assessable, and that requiring the Commissioner to proceed only through district court would complicate and frustrate congressional intent. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the Tax Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Safdieh v. Comm'r" on Justia Law

In January 2020, William Jimenez sold fentanyl-laced heroin to an undercover New York City police detective, arranging the transactions by phone. During the same period, Jimenez shot another individual and was arrested soon after. A search revealed drugs and ammunition in his possession and vehicle. He was indicted on several counts, including possessing ammunition after a felony conviction, firearm discharge related to drug trafficking, and multiple counts of distributing controlled substances. Jimenez ultimately pled guilty to possessing ammunition after a felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), pursuant to a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver for sentences within a stipulated Guidelines range.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sentenced Jimenez to 105 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release, imposing seven special conditions, three of which he later challenged. On a prior appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the case, requiring the District Court to provide individualized justifications for the challenged special conditions. On remand, the District Court reimposed the conditions with further explanation. Jimenez appealed again, contesting the special conditions and seeking resentencing based on a change in the law affecting his Guidelines calculation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. It held that the special conditions—electronic device searches, community service requirements during unemployment, and outpatient mental health counseling—were procedurally and substantively reasonable, supported by the record, and tailored to Jimenez’s history and circumstances. The Court also held that Jimenez’s appeal waiver barred his challenge to the term of imprisonment, even in light of an intervening change in the law. The judgment of the District Court was therefore affirmed. View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

A major music performing rights organization, which licenses the public performance of musical works to concert promoters, was unable to reach agreement with a national association of concert promoters on the rates and revenue base for blanket licenses covering live performances. For the first time in their relationship, the rights organization petitioned the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to set the licensing terms, as permitted under an antitrust consent decree applicable to the organization due to its significant market share. The promoters’ association, whose members include the two largest concert promoters in the United States, has historically secured blanket licenses from multiple performing rights organizations to avoid copyright infringement.The district court accepted the organization’s proposed rates for a retroactive period and set a new, higher rate for a more recent period. It also broadened the definition of “gross revenues” for calculating royalties, including new categories such as revenues from ticket service fees, VIP packages, and box suites, which had not traditionally been included. The promoters’ association appealed these decisions, arguing that both the rates and the expanded revenue base were unreasonable. The rights organization cross-appealed the denial of prejudgment interest on retroactive payments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. It held that the district court imposed unreasonable rates, in part because it adopted an unprecedented and administratively burdensome revenue base without justification and relied too heavily on benchmark agreements that were not sufficiently comparable to prior agreements with the association. The court also found no economic changes justifying a significant rate increase. While it found no abuse of discretion in denying prejudgment interest, it vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Broadcast Music, Inc. v. North American Concert Promoters Association" on Justia Law