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

Fourteen children who were removed from their biological parents by New York City officials are the plaintiffs in this case. After their removal, relatives sought certification to become foster or adoptive parents for these children, but their applications were denied due to criminal history or reports of child abuse or mistreatment. The children allege that New York’s certification scheme violates their substantive due process rights to family integrity and freedom from harm, and that procedural due process was violated because they were not given notice or an opportunity to challenge the denial of a relative’s application.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the complaint. It ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, reasoning that most of the children did not have a cognizable injury since they were living with relatives, and others could not trace their separation from relatives to the defendants. The district court also found that the plaintiffs were asserting the rights of third-party relatives rather than their own, and that prudential standing barred their claims. The court did not address the procedural due process claims directly.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue both substantive and procedural due process claims. The court found that denial of certified placement with a relative constituted a concrete and particularized injury, traceable to the defendants, and redressable by a favorable ruling. The court also determined that the plaintiffs were asserting their own rights, not those of their relatives, and rejected the district court’s prudential standing analysis. However, some claims were deemed moot: two plaintiffs are now in the care of a relative foster parent and another has aged out of foster care. Only one plaintiff has standing to challenge the adoption certification rules. The Second Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "B.B. v. Hochul" on Justia Law

On February 1, 2018, Christopher Matusak was arrested in Scottsville, New York, after fleeing from police. Deputies from the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office, including Matthew Daminski, Stephen Murphy, and Sergeant Brian Unterborn, apprehended him using various forms of force, such as fist and knee strikes, pepper spray, and a taser, before handcuffing him. Matusak sustained injuries requiring hospitalization. He subsequently filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the deputies violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by using excessive force during his arrest.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York presided over a jury trial. The jury determined that Deputy Daminski did not use excessive force, but found that Murphy and Unterborn did, awarding Matusak $200,000 in compensatory damages. However, the jury also found that, although Matusak did not actually pose a threat to officer safety, Murphy and Unterborn reasonably believed he did, and that Matusak was resisting their attempts to handcuff him. Based on the jury’s special verdicts, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to Murphy and Unterborn, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unlawful under the circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Murphy and Unterborn were entitled to qualified immunity, reasoning that no clearly established law prohibited the use of significant force against an arrestee who was resisting and whom the officers reasonably, though mistakenly, believed posed a threat to officer safety. As it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe their actions were lawful, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Matusak v. Daminski" on Justia Law

C.B., a 34-year-old man with developmental and psychiatric disabilities, died while residing at the Valley Ridge Center for Intensive Treatment, a secure state-run facility operated by the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. Although C.B. was admitted voluntarily, the facility imposed substantial restrictions on his liberty, including limits on leaving the premises and accessing medical care. In the days leading up to his death from cardiomyopathy, C.B. exhibited clear symptoms of heart failure and repeatedly asked staff for help, but his pleas were allegedly ignored or inadequately addressed by his caretakers.J.M., C.B.’s mother and administrator of his estate, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging violations of C.B.’s substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims for negligence and medical malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claim, holding that C.B., as a voluntarily admitted resident, had no constitutional right to adequate medical care, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court also denied J.M.’s motion to amend her complaint to add a new defendant, finding lack of diligence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that C.B. was entitled to substantive due process protections regardless of his voluntary admission status. The court clarified that when the state exercises sufficient control over a resident’s life such that the individual cannot care for himself, due process guarantees apply, consistent with Youngberg v. Romeo, Society for Good Will to Retarded Children, Inc. v. Cuomo, and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "J.M. v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Several nonprofit, faith-based organizations that provide pregnancy-related services and oppose abortion initiated an action against the New York State Attorney General. These organizations had made statements regarding abortion pill reversal (“APR”), a protocol intended to counteract the effects of medication-induced abortion. After the Attorney General commenced a civil enforcement action in New York state court against other entities (not parties to this case) for making similar APR-related statements, the plaintiffs alleged they faced a credible threat of sanctions if they continued such speech. As a result, they stopped making APR-related statements and sought declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court, arguing that the regulation of their APR-related speech violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York addressed the Attorney General’s argument that the federal court should abstain under the Younger v. Harris doctrine due to the parallel state enforcement action. The district court found abstention unwarranted, noting the federal claims were not inextricably intertwined with the state action and would not interfere with it. On the merits, the district court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim because the APR-related speech was noncommercial, religiously and morally motivated, involved no financial benefit or remuneration, and did not directly offer APR but instead provided information and referrals. Since the Attorney General did not show the state’s restrictions would survive strict scrutiny, the district court granted a preliminary injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Second Circuit held abstention under Younger was not required, as the plaintiffs’ claims were independent of the state enforcement action. The court found no abuse of discretion in the grant of the preliminary injunction, agreeing that the plaintiffs’ APR-related speech was noncommercial and protected, and the Attorney General failed to meet the strict scrutiny standard. View "Nat'l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. James" on Justia Law

A wealthy bond trader from New York, through a network of assistants, recruited women from across the United States to travel to his New York penthouse for what was represented as consensual sadomasochistic sexual encounters in exchange for money. The women were enticed with promises of cash, luxury experiences, and travel. However, once there, while some anticipated rough consensual sex, they were subjected to violent, nonconsensual acts, including severe physical abuse, sexual assault, and use of force far beyond what had been described or agreed to. The trader required the women to sign non-disclosure and purported consent agreements, often after they had used alcohol or drugs, and none received copies. The plaintiffs, six women, alleged lasting physical and psychological harm.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York conducted a jury trial on claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and state tort law. After deliberation, the jury found the defendant liable under the TVPA and awarded each plaintiff $500,000 in compensatory damages. Five plaintiffs received $120,000 in punitive damages each, and one plaintiff received $250,000. The jury did not find the defendant’s assistants liable, except for one minor battery claim. The defendant’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial were denied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the district court’s jury instructions, and the availability of punitive damages under the TVPA. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict, the instructions properly conveyed the applicable law, and punitive damages are available under the TVPA. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "Moore v. Rubin" 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 transgender inmate serving a lengthy sentence in the Connecticut prison system was diagnosed with gender dysphoria after several years of incarceration. The inmate requested various treatments, including stronger hormone therapy and a vaginoplasty, but was initially denied hormone therapy due to a prison policy that only allowed continuation, not initiation, of such treatment. After a policy change, the inmate received hormone therapy, mental health counseling, antidepressants, and some lifestyle accommodations. Despite these measures, the inmate continued to request additional treatments, including surgery, and expressed dissatisfaction with the care provided, alleging it was inadequate and not delivered by specialists in gender dysphoria.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut reviewed the inmate’s claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. The district court found that the corrections officials had deprived the inmate of adequate care by providing mental health treatment from unqualified providers, delaying and inadequately administering hormone therapy, and denying surgical intervention. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that the right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was clearly established.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that there is no clearly established constitutional right for inmates to receive specific treatments for gender dysphoria or to be treated by gender-dysphoria specialists. The court found that reasonable officials could disagree about the adequacy and legality of the care provided, which included talk therapy, antidepressants, and hormone therapy. The Second Circuit concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment in their favor. View "Clark v. Valletta" on Justia Law

An educator employed by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) was appointed Executive Director of the “AP for All” program, where she supervised a diverse team and was credited with expanding access to Advanced Placement courses. Early in her tenure, she experienced racial tensions with subordinates, including accusations of “microaggressions” and being labeled as exhibiting “white fragility.” These tensions escalated after a new Chancellor implemented an “equity agenda” that included mandatory implicit bias trainings. The plaintiff, who is Caucasian, alleged that these trainings and subsequent workplace interactions fostered a racially hostile environment, with repeated negative generalizations about white employees and a lack of intervention by supervisors when she complained.The plaintiff initially filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York, later amending her complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom that caused her demotion, the alleged hostile work environment, or her constructive discharge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the demotion and constructive discharge claims, holding that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that these actions were motivated by racial discrimination or that the employer intentionally created intolerable working conditions. However, the court vacated the summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, finding that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the DOE’s actions and inaction amounted to a municipal policy or custom that created a racially hostile environment. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "Chislett v. New York City Department of Education" on Justia Law

A hotel in the Town of Newburgh, New York, agreed to provide long-term housing to asylum seekers as part of a program initiated by New York City. In response, the Town alleged that the hotel’s actions violated local zoning and occupancy ordinances, which limited hotel stays to transient guests for no more than 30 days. The Town inspected the hotel, found modifications suggesting long-term use, and filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, seeking to enjoin the hotel from housing asylum seekers for extended periods. The state court issued a temporary restraining order, but allowed the asylum seekers already present to remain pending further orders.The hotel removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that the Town’s enforcement was racially motivated and violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thus justifying removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The district court found that removal was improper because the hotel had not sufficiently pleaded grounds for removal under § 1443(1), and remanded the case to state court.While the hotel’s appeal of the remand order was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the underlying state court action was discontinued with prejudice after the asylum seekers left and the City ended its program. The Second Circuit determined that, because the state court case was permanently terminated, there was no longer a live controversy regarding removal. The court held the appeal was moot and, following standard practice when mootness occurs through no fault of the appellant, vacated the district court’s remand order and dismissed the appeal. View "Town of Newburgh v. Newburgh EOM LLC" on Justia Law

A private Christian school in Vermont forfeited a girls’ basketball playoff game because it objected, on religious grounds, to playing against a team with a transgender athlete. The school believes that requiring its female athletes to compete against biological males would violate its religious convictions about the immutability of sex. Following the forfeit, the Vermont Principals’ Association (VPA), which oversees extracurricular activities for Vermont schools, expelled the school from all state-sponsored extracurricular activities, including both athletic and non-athletic events.After the expulsion, the school and several students and parents filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate the school’s VPA membership and alleging a violation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, finding that the VPA’s policies regarding transgender athletes were neutral and generally applicable, and thus subject only to rational-basis review. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the VPA’s expulsion was not neutral, as it was accompanied by official expressions of hostility toward the school’s religious beliefs. The court found that the plaintiffs also satisfied the requirements of irreparable harm and public interest. Accordingly, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to grant a preliminary injunction reinstating the school’s VPA membership pending further proceedings. View "Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders" on Justia Law