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

A trade association representing the dietary supplement industry challenged a New York law that prohibits the sale of dietary supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to individuals under eighteen. The law was enacted in response to concerns about health risks to minors from such supplements. The statute defines covered products based on how they are labeled or marketed, and authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctions against violators. The association argued that the law violates the First Amendment, is unconstitutionally vague, and is preempted by federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the association’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the association was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims, had not shown irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest weighed against granting relief. The District Court later dismissed the vagueness and preemption claims but allowed the First Amendment claim to proceed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit held that the law satisfies intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson test for commercial speech, finding that New York has a substantial interest in protecting minors’ health, that the law directly advances that interest, and that it is not more extensive than necessary. The court also concluded that the age verification requirement does not unconstitutionally compel speech, that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that it is not preempted by federal law. The court further found that the association failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the public interest favored an injunction. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Council for Responsible Nutrition v. James" on Justia Law

Thomas Cole brought suit against his former employer, Foxmar, Inc., alleging unlawful retaliation in violation of the Vermont Occupational Safety and Health Act (VOSHA) and the Vermont Earned Sick Time Act (VESTA). At trial, a jury found in Cole’s favor on both claims, initially awarding him over $3 million in damages, including punitive damages. However, after the District Court determined the punitive damages were excessive and ordered a new trial on damages, the second jury awarded Cole $55,000 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. Cole then sought attorney’s fees under the relevant Vermont statutes.The United States District Court for the District of Vermont found Cole entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees but imposed two across-the-board reductions: a twenty-five percent reduction for what it deemed excessive hours billed by Cole’s attorney, and a further thirty percent reduction based on the perceived disproportionality between the attorney’s fees requested and the damages ultimately awarded. This resulted in a total fee award significantly lower than Cole’s request. Cole appealed, arguing that both reductions were improper and that the overall award was unreasonably low.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the twenty-five percent reduction for excessive hours was within the District Court’s discretion and consistent with Vermont law. However, the court concluded that the thirty percent reduction based on proportionality between fees and damages was not permitted under Vermont law, which does not require fee awards to be proportional to damages in cases involving fee-shifting statutes like VOSHA and VESTA. The Second Circuit therefore vacated the District Court’s fee award and remanded the case for recalculation of a reasonable fee consistent with Vermont law. View "Cole v. Foxmar, Inc." on Justia Law

In March 2023, a New York State grand jury indicted a former President on thirty-four counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The indictment alleged that he orchestrated a scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election by directing his personal lawyer to pay $130,000 to an adult film star to prevent disclosure of an alleged sexual encounter. The payments were disguised as legal fees in business records. After arraignment, the defendant sought to remove the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, arguing the conduct was within the color of his office and involved federal defenses. The federal district court remanded the case to state court, finding the prosecution fell outside the scope of federal officer removal jurisdiction. A state court jury subsequently convicted the defendant on all counts.After conviction but before sentencing, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Trump v. United States, holding that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority and that evidence of immunized official acts is inadmissible even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct. The defendant then sought leave to file a second, untimely notice of removal in federal court, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision provided new grounds for removal and established good cause for the delay. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied leave, concluding that good cause had not been shown and that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial. The Second Circuit held that the district court had not adequately considered issues relevant to the good cause inquiry, including the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision and whether evidence admitted at trial related to immunized official acts. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for reconsideration of the motion for leave to file a second notice of removal, instructing the district court to address these issues. View "New York v. Trump" on Justia Law

Lavellous Purcell operated a commercial sex business from 2012 to 2017, recruiting women from across the United States to work as prostitutes and coordinating their interstate travel. He resided primarily on Long Island, New York, and the women involved traveled to at least fourteen states. The government’s case focused on documentary evidence regarding one victim, Samantha Vasquez, showing her work for Purcell in various locations, but not in the Southern District of New York.Purcell was indicted in 2018 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on five counts related to sex trafficking. After a jury trial, he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, his conviction on Count One (enticement to engage in unlawful sexual activity) was reversed for lack of venue in the Southern District of New York, but his conviction on Count Two (transporting a victim in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution) was affirmed because his appellate counsel did not challenge venue for that count. The district court reimposed the original sentence after remand. Purcell then filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court denied, finding appellate counsel’s performance reasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the denial of Purcell’s habeas petition de novo. The court held that Purcell’s appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge venue as to Count Two, as the omitted argument was significant and obvious and likely would have resulted in reversal of that conviction. The court declined to apply the concurrent sentence doctrine and found Purcell was prejudiced by counsel’s omission. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Purcell’s § 2255 petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Purcell v. United States" on Justia Law

Steven Douglas Coleman, a well-known jazz saxophonist, brought a defamation claim under New York law against his former pupil, Maria Kim Grand. The dispute arose from a seven-page letter Grand circulated privately to friends and colleagues in the music industry, describing her complex sexual and professional relationship with Coleman from 2011 to 2016. In the letter, Grand recounted various incidents and interactions, characterizing Coleman’s conduct as sexual harassment and describing situations where she felt pressured to be intimate with him in exchange for mentorship and professional opportunities. Grand used a pseudonym for Coleman and stated her intent was to contribute to the broader conversation about sexism in the music industry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Grand, finding that Coleman failed to present facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Grand acted with actual malice. The court also determined that the statements in Grand’s letter were non-actionable opinions rather than demonstrably false factual assertions, and that the letter disclosed the underlying facts supporting Grand’s opinions.On appeal, Coleman argued that the district court misapplied New York law, erred in finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding actual malice, and incorrectly classified the challenged statements as non-actionable opinion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the statements Coleman challenged were Grand’s subjective opinions supported by disclosed facts, and thus not actionable as defamation under New York law. The court concluded that none of the statements at issue were defamatory and affirmed the dismissal of Coleman’s claim. View "Coleman v. Grand" on Justia Law

A man committed several felonies in New York and Virginia between 2000 and 2001. After serving his prison sentences, he was subject to both state and federal post-release supervision. He repeatedly violated the terms of his supervision, resulting in multiple periods of reincarceration. In 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Earley v. Murray that New York’s practice of administratively imposing post-release supervision without a judicial pronouncement was unconstitutional. The state legislature responded in 2008 by authorizing corrections officials to initiate resentencing proceedings. The plaintiff was incarcerated in New York from June 2007 to February 2008 for violating post-release supervision, and again in 2010, before being resentenced without post-release supervision.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for damages related to his 2010 incarceration, finding the defendants acted reasonably at that time, but allowed claims related to the 2007-08 incarceration to proceed to trial. At trial, the defendants were barred from introducing evidence that legal and administrative obstacles prevented them from initiating resentencing for the plaintiff during 2007-08. The jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in compensatory and $750,000 in punitive damages. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial and rejected their qualified immunity defense for the 2007-08 period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of impediments to resentencing and erred in denying a new trial for the 2007-08 period. The court reversed the denial of a new trial for that period, vacated the dismissal of the 2010 claims on qualified immunity grounds, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also held that qualified immunity was properly denied for both periods under existing precedent. View "Santiago v. Fischer" on Justia Law

A high school senior in New York posted a photo on social media after school hours and off school grounds, depicting a friend kneeling on his neck with the caption “Cops got another.” The image resembled the murder of George Floyd, and although the student claimed he did not intend this resemblance, he removed the post within minutes after receiving negative reactions. However, another student took a screenshot and shared it more widely, leading to public outcry, in-school discussions, a student demonstration, and a school investigation. The school superintendent suspended the student and barred him from extracurricular activities for the rest of the school year.The student initially filed suit in New York State Supreme Court, alleging that the school’s disciplinary actions violated his First Amendment rights. After the state court granted limited injunctive relief allowing him to attend graduation, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the school district, finding that the student’s off-campus speech caused substantial disruption in school and thus was not protected by the First Amendment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. Applying the standards from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Second Circuit held that the school’s disciplinary actions violated the student’s First Amendment rights. The court found that the off-campus nature of the speech, its lack of threatening content, and the school’s interests did not justify the punishment imposed. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Leroy v. Livingston Manor Central School District" on Justia Law

Three U.S. citizens each sponsored a close family member for an immigrant visa to the United States. After their petitions were approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the family members applied for visas at the U.S. Consulate General in Guangzhou, China. Following interviews, the consular officers denied the visa applications, citing fraud or misrepresentation as the basis for inadmissibility. The U.S. citizen sponsors challenged these denials in federal court, alleging that the decisions were not facially legitimate or bona fide, were issued in bad faith, and that the notices were untimely.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the claims. It found that one plaintiff’s claim was brought in an improper venue and dismissed it without prejudice. The remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which generally bars judicial review of consular visa decisions. The district court concluded that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of State v. Muñoz, U.S. citizens do not have a constitutional right to reunite with parents or siblings through visa sponsorship, and thus no constitutional right was burdened by the denials. The court also found the allegations of bad faith insufficient and rejected the timeliness argument as a repackaged merits challenge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability precludes judicial review of the visa denials because the plaintiffs did not have a constitutional right implicated by the denials. The court also agreed that the plaintiffs’ alternative arguments lacked merit and that the consular officers’ decisions were insulated from judicial review. View "Chen v. Rubio" on Justia Law

A physician specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation was employed by a medical practice under a three-year contract that anticipated partnership if not terminated. After patient and staff complaints about her conduct, the practice proposed a new one-year contract without a partnership track, which she refused to sign. She was then terminated with 90 days’ notice. The physician alleged that her termination was due to age and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation for stating her intent to file an EEOC complaint, and also brought a breach of contract claim.After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The District Judge reviewed the report and recommendation (R&R) only for clear error, concluding that the physician’s objections were improper because they repeated arguments made before the Magistrate Judge, and adopted the R&R in full. The physician appealed, arguing that her objections were timely and specific, and that the District Judge should have conducted de novo review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the District Court erred in applying only clear error review, as the physician’s objections were proper and required de novo review. However, the appellate court found this error harmless because it reviews summary judgment decisions de novo. On its own review, the Second Circuit concluded that the physician failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact on her preserved claims of sex discrimination, aiding and abetting discrimination, and retaliation. The court also found that her age discrimination and breach of contract claims were not preserved for appellate review. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants. View "Nambiar v. The Central Orthopedic Group, LLP" on Justia Law

Nearly a million barrels of crude oil owned by a U.S. company were seized from a vessel in Venezuelan waters by Venezuelan authorities under threat of force. The oil was insured under a marine cargo reinsurance policy that covered losses arising from war-related risks, including “insurrection.” The insured company claimed that the political turmoil in Venezuela, including the contested presidency and violent suppression of opposition, constituted an insurrection as defined by the policy. The reinsurers denied coverage, arguing that the events did not meet the policy’s definition of insurrection, leading to litigation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court found the term “insurrection” in the policy to be ambiguous and, applying New York law and the doctrine of contra proferentem, construed the ambiguity in favor of the insured. The court held that the Maduro regime’s actions constituted an insurrection within the meaning of the policy. The case proceeded to trial on causation and damages, where the jury found in favor of the insured on most issues, awarding over $54 million in damages plus interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered challenges to the district court’s summary judgment ruling, judicial notice orders, and jury instructions on causation. The Second Circuit held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in any of the challenged rulings. It affirmed that the policy’s “arising from” language required only but-for causation, not proximate causation. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects, upholding the award to the insured. View "CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. Ascot Underwriting Ltd." on Justia Law