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

A nonprofit organization that publishes content critical of United States immigration policy was issued a subpoena by the New York Attorney General’s office seeking documents related to its governance, finances, and relationships with vendors and contractors. The organization alleged that the subpoena was motivated by a desire to suppress its viewpoints and thus violated its rights under the First Amendment and the New York State Constitution. The Attorney General, however, maintained that the investigation was prompted by concerns about possible self-dealing and regulatory noncompliance.After the subpoena was issued, the nonprofit partially responded but maintained objections. It then filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages and an injunction against enforcement of the subpoena, claiming the subpoena was retaliatory and unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, the Attorney General initiated a special proceeding in New York State Supreme Court to compel compliance. The organization moved to dismiss or stay the state proceeding, raising constitutional arguments. The state court ruled against the nonprofit, ordering compliance with the subpoena (with some redactions allowed), and the New York Appellate Division, First Department affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed a further appeal.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the nonprofit’s request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the federal claims, holding that they were precluded by the earlier state court judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the state court’s decision was final and on the merits, involved the same parties and subject matter, and therefore barred the federal claims. The court also dismissed as moot the appeal of the denial of preliminary injunctive relief. View "VDARE Foundation, Inc. v. James" on Justia Law

A Malaysian national who worked as a managing director for Goldman Sachs in Malaysia was prosecuted for his role in a large-scale financial scheme involving 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a Malaysian state-owned investment fund. The government presented evidence showing that, along with other conspirators, he participated in three major bond offerings raising $6.5 billion, from which more than $2.5 billion was diverted for bribes and kickbacks to officials and participants, including himself. The funds were laundered through shell companies, and the defendant received $35.1 million that was deposited in an account controlled by his family members. The defendant’s wife asserted at trial that these funds were legitimate investment returns, not criminal proceeds.Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied several motions by the defendant. The court rejected his arguments that the indictment should be dismissed for lack of venue, concluding that acts in furtherance of the conspiracy passed through the Eastern District of New York. The court also found that the government did not breach an agreement regarding his extradition from Malaysia, since the superseding indictments did not charge new offenses. The district court excluded a video recording offered by the defense as inadmissible hearsay, and ultimately, a jury found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered to forfeit $35.1 million.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the defendant argued improper venue, breach of extradition agreement, erroneous exclusion of evidence, and that the forfeiture was an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. The Second Circuit held that the district court had not erred in any respect. Venue was proper, the extradition agreement was not breached, the evidentiary ruling was not an abuse of discretion, and the forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate to the offense. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and forfeiture order were affirmed. View "USA v. NG CHONG HWA" on Justia Law

In October 2021, a Florida attorney, Ross, held a trust account at Regions Bank that received a $29.6 million wire transfer, the result of a business email compromise fraud perpetrated on a company called Phoenix. Most of the funds were rapidly transferred out of the account, with some recalled by the bank. Federal authorities seized approximately $4.9 million remaining or recovered from the account and initiated a civil forfeiture action, alleging the funds were proceeds of fraud or involved in money laundering.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York oversaw the initial proceedings. Ross filed a verified claim to $1.21 million of the seized funds, asserting they were legitimate client funds or proceeds from his home sale, but made no claim to the remaining $3.69 million. Another claimant, Phoenix, also asserted interest in the $1.21 million. The district court entered default judgment forfeiting the unclaimed $3.69 million to the government, dismissed without prejudice the forfeiture proceedings as to the $1.21 million, and issued a certificate of reasonable cause for the seizure. It denied Ross’s subsequent motion for attorney fees, costs, and interest under CAFRA, finding he did not “substantially prevail,” and denied reconsideration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Ross lacked standing to contest the forfeiture of the $3.69 million because he had not filed a claim as to those funds. The court rejected Ross’s due process challenge to the stay of proceedings, finding the delay reasonable, and upheld the denial of attorney fees, costs, and interest, concluding that dismissal without prejudice did not make Ross a prevailing party under CAFRA. The court also found no abuse of discretion in dismissing the forfeiture action without prejudice. However, the Second Circuit vacated the issuance of a certificate of reasonable cause, as no judgment for Ross had been entered. All other aspects of the district court’s judgments were affirmed. View "United States v. Ross" 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

Adam Gomez was charged with receiving and possessing a firearm that had an obliterated serial number. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute under which he was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), was unconstitutional. After the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied his motion, Gomez pleaded guilty to the offense. His appeal centers on the claim that the statute is facially unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, which clarified the scope of the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied Gomez’s motion to dismiss the indictment, rejecting his constitutional challenge to § 922(k). Following this denial, Gomez entered a guilty plea and was convicted. He then appealed the judgment, arguing that the statute violates the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Bruen.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) is facially constitutional. The court reasoned that the statute does not infringe upon the right to bear arms because it does not prevent anyone from possessing any type of firearm, and firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not weapons in common use for lawful purposes. The court also noted that Gomez’s facial challenge failed because he did not demonstrate that the statute is unconstitutional in all its applications or that it lacks a plainly legitimate sweep. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law

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

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

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