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

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's unlawful search and seizure claims. The court concluded that defendants violated clearly established law by detaining and frisking plaintiff based on nothing more than an officer's unconfirmed hunch that there might be an open warrant for plaintiff's arrest. In this case, police officers stopped plaintiff and his daughters as they walked out of a Target store. Although the officers admittedly had no reason to think plaintiff had committed a crime, one officer speculated that there "might be" a warrant for plaintiff's arrest. The court explained that the officers clearly lacked any facts giving them reasonable suspicion that plaintiff was involved in criminal activity (much less carrying a dangerous weapon) or wanted for a crime. View "Vasquez v. Maloney" on Justia Law

The State of New York enacted new party-qualification requirements in the spring of 2020, requiring political organizations to earn the greater of 130,000 votes or 2 percent of the vote in elections for President and for Governor to achieve party status and the automatic place on the ballot it confers. In this appeal, the SAM Party and its chairman challenged the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction against the party-qualification requirements.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that appellants are not likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim because the burden imposed by the presidential-election requirement is (1) not severe and (2) justified by the State's interest in uncluttered ballots, effective electoral competition, and the preservation of resources dedicated to public financing of elections. Therefore, the district court appropriately denied the SAM Party's motion for a preliminary injunction. View "SAM Party of New York v. Kosinski" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants unlawfully used photographs of them to advertise strip clubs owned by defendants in violation of New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding that plaintiffs signed full releases of their rights to the photographs.The Second Circuit concluded that the terms of Plaintiff Shake and Hinton's release agreements are disputed material facts, and defendants concede that neither they nor the third-party contractors that created and published the advertisements secured legal rights to use any of the photographs at issue. The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants and in denying summary judgment to plaintiffs on liability. Therefore, the court vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings.The court affirmed in part and held that the district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs had not accepted the offer of judgment because the offer's settlement amount term was ambiguous, the parties disagreed over how to interpret the term, and there was accordingly no meeting of the minds. Finally, the court held that the district court correctly dismissed the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), New York General Business Law Section 349, and libel claims. View "Electra v. 59 Murray Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Connecticut inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendant and other Connecticut state officials, alleging deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights. A jury found defendant liable for violating plaintiff's constitutional rights and awarded plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages. At issue in this appeal is the satisfaction of plaintiff's judgment. After the judgment became final, the State voluntarily undertook to satisfy the judgment on defendant's behalf. In doing so, the State took actions against plaintiff under Connecticut law to recoup portions of the payment.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on plaintiff's "motion for aid of judgment" and "motion to unfreeze assets," as well as defendant's motion for reconsideration and "motion for credit against judgment." The court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the district court's ruling that defendant's debt to plaintiff had not been satisfied. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that Connecticut's actions were preempted by section 1983. In this case, the court found no error in the district court's conclusion that the State's attempt to discharge defendant's judgment obligations in significant part through payments to itself and payments to plaintiffs that the state might eventually recoup undermines the objectives of section 1983. Likewise, defendant's motion for reconsideration also failed for the same reasons as the district court's ruling on plaintiff's post-judgment motions. Finally, defendant waived his challenge to the district court's denial in part of his motion for credit against judgment. View "Williams v. Marinelli" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Hartford and enjoining defendants, who are administrators and clerks at the Connecticut Superior Court, from enforcing a Connecticut statute that mandates automatic sealing of all judicial records and closure to the public of all court proceedings in criminal prosecutions of juvenile defendants transferred to the regular criminal docket.The court held that Public Act Number 19-187 is unconstitutional. The court concluded that the Courant has a qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal prosecutions of juveniles in regular criminal court. The court agreed with the district court that, for cases in criminal court, even those involving juvenile defendants, the "place and process" have historically been open to the public. Furthermore, public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question. The court also concluded that the Act infringes on that right because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Finally, the court concluded that the Courant has shown that all four requirements for a preliminary injunction have been met. View "Hartford Courant Co., LLC v. Carroll" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Connecticut prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that state correctional officials violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by denying him a meaningful opportunity to exercise for six months. In this case, the alleged denial occurred when prison officials required him to wear full restraints when exercising in the prison yard. After a jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, the district court granted the Warden's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the basis that plaintiff's personal involvement was for too short a time to support an Eighth Amendment claim.The Second Circuit vacated the district court's entry of judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings that plaintiff was subjected to an Eighth Amendment violation. The court explained that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the Warden had the requisite state of mind for the entire six-month period during which plaintiff was required to exercise in restraints when outside of his cell, not just the two weeks that the district court found; the jury's verdict was not based on "sheer surmise and conjecture," but on abundant circumstantial evidence from which a jury reasonably inferred that the Warden's actual knowledge of plaintiff's recreation status and the concomitant risk to plaintiff's health from being required to exercise in restraints; and the Warden's claims that there can be no Eighth Amendment violation are unavailing. The court also concluded that the Warden was liable for the Eighth Amendment violation, and that the Warden is not protected by qualified immunity where he knowingly violated plaintiff's clearly established right to meaningful exercise under the circumstances and lacked a sufficient justification for doing so. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Edwards v. Quiros" on Justia Law

Former inmate Kotler sued prison officials, claiming that they planted a weapon in his housing area in retaliation for his activities on an inmate grievance committee. He also alleged violations of his due process rights in a disciplinary hearing over the incident. After a second remand, the district court dismissed Kotler’s due process claim as abandoned during prior appeals, and dismissed the alleged linchpin defendant, now-deceased Superintendent Donelli, finding that no one timely moved for substitution of Donelli’s successor after his death. A jury returned a defense verdict on Kotler’s retaliation claims.The Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The dismissal of Donelli was proper; under FRCP 25(a), the 90-day deadline for a plaintiff to move to substitute a defendant is triggered by service of a notice on the plaintiff of the defendant’s death, regardless of whether that notice was also served upon the decedent’s successor or representative. The district court gave Kotler a fair trial on his retaliation claim. The court asked witnesses questions, limited Kotler’s questioning of a witness, and told Kotler to hurry up numerous times but in light of the entire record, the court’s questions were attempts to clarify and organize information. A supplemental jury instruction did not constitute fundamental error. Kotler did not abandon his due process claim during his previous appeals, so the district court erred in dismissing it. View "Kotler v. Jubert" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that plaintiffs will likely succeed in showing that, as applied, the Dual Enrollment Program's "publicly funded" requirement violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In this case, A.H., her parents, and the Diocese filed suit against the Agency of Education after A.H.'s application for public funding to the program was denied solely because of her school's religious status.The court concluded that, in these circumstances, the State's reliance on the "publicly funded" requirement as a condition for program eligibility imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion, because it forced Rice Memorial High School, a ministry of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, to chose whether to participate in an otherwise available benefit program or remain a religious institution. At the same time, the requirement puts A.H.'s family to a choice between sending their child to a religious school or receiving benefits. In light of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012, 2021 (2017), the court explained that the denial of a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity can be justified only by a state interest of the highest order. In this case, the Agency has not identified any compelling interest that could survive strict scrutiny. The court also concluded that the remaining preliminary injunction factors favor a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and granted the motion for a preliminary injunction. View "A.H. v. French" on Justia Law

The Rockland County, New York school district is 65.7% white, 19.1% black, 10.7% Latino, and 3.3% Asian. In 2017-2018, 8,843 students attended public schools, while 29,279 students attended private schools, primarily Jewish yeshivas; 92% of public school students are black or Latino, while 98% of private-school students are white. School board candidates run for a specific seat in at-large elections; all eligible district voters vote in each race. Influential members of the private-school community have an informal slating process by which Board candidates are selected and promoted. An Orthodox Rabbi controls a slating organization that has secured victory for the white community’s preferred candidate in each contested election. Although the Organization has slated some successful minority candidates, minority voters did not prefer these candidates. Only those with connections to the Organization have been selected. When vetted, candidates were not asked about their policy views.The Second Circuit affirmed that the election system resulted in dilution of black and Latino votes, violating the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10301. The Act does not require a finding that racial motivations caused election results. The court properly relied on expert findings, that used data derived through Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding rather than the traditional Citizen Voting Age Population data. The totality of the circumstances supports a finding of impermissible vote dilution, given the near-perfect correlation between race and school-type; the scant evidence that policy preferences caused election results; the blatant neglect of minority needs; the lack of minority-preferred election success; the white-dominated slating organization; and the District's bad faith throughout the litigation. View "Clerveaux v. East Ramapo Central School District" on Justia Law

On October 06, 2020, Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order directing the New York State Department of Health to identify yellow, orange, and red "zones" based on the severity of COVID-19 outbreaks and imposing correspondingly severe restrictions on activity within each zone. Appellants, Agudath Israel and the Diocese, each challenged the executive order as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Appellants moved for injunctions pending appeal, which a divided motions panel of the Second Circuit denied. Appellants then sought injunctive relief from the Supreme Court, which granted writs of injunction prohibiting the Governor from enforcing the Order's 10- and 25-person capacity limits pending disposition of this appeal. The Supreme Court found that appellants were likely to succeed on the merits, applying strict scrutiny to the Order because it is not neutral on its face and imposes greater restrictions on religious activities than on other activities the Governor considers "essential."In light of the Supreme Court's decision, the Second Circuit held that the Order's regulation of "houses of worship" is subject to strict scrutiny and that its fixed capacity limits are not narrowly tailored to stem the spread of COVID-19. Therefore, appellants have established irreparable harm caused by the fixed capacity limits, and the public interest favors granting injunctive relief. As to the Diocese's appeal, the court reversed and remanded with directions for the district court to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Governor from enforcing the Order's 10- and 25-person capacity limits. As to Agudath Israel's appeal, the court reversed in part and remanded for the issuance of a preliminary injunction as to those fixed capacity limits. The court also vacated the district court's denial of Agudath Israel's motion for a preliminary injunction as to the Order's 25 and 33 percent capacity limits, and remanded or the district court to determine in the first instance whether those limits should be enjoined in light of the Supreme Court's decision and this opinion. View "Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo" on Justia Law