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

Joe Baltas, a Connecticut state prisoner, was transferred to the Virginia Department of Corrections (VADOC) under the Interstate Corrections Compact. While at Red Onion State Prison (ROSP) in Virginia, Baltas alleges he was threatened by VADOC officials for filing a grievance and was later attacked by inmates, resulting in his placement in restrictive housing. He also claims that Connecticut Department of Corrections (CTDOC) officials failed to review his administrative segregation (Ad Seg) status as required, violating his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, he alleges violations of his First, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights due to his treatment at ROSP.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The court found that CTDOC had adequately reviewed Baltas’s Ad Seg classification and dismissed his due process claim. It also dismissed his First, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment claims, concluding that Baltas failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court’s ruling that CTDOC’s periodic reviews of Baltas’s Ad Seg classification satisfied due process requirements. However, it found that a genuine dispute of fact existed regarding whether VADOC’s administrative remedies were available to Baltas, making summary judgment inappropriate for his First, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment claims. The court vacated the summary judgment on these claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Baltas’s remaining claims in a concurrently issued summary order. View "Baltas v. Maiga" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to New York City's Guaranty Law, which was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The law rendered personal guaranties of commercial lease obligations arising between March 7, 2020, and June 30, 2021, permanently unenforceable and identified efforts to collect on such guaranties as proscribed commercial tenant harassment. Plaintiffs, a group of New York City landlords, argued that the law violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution.Initially, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of the Contracts Clause challenge and remanded the case for further consideration. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Guaranty Law was unconstitutional.The City of New York appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the City did not enforce the Guaranty Law. The Second Circuit found that while the plaintiffs had standing at the pleadings stage due to the presumption of enforcement, they failed to meet the heightened burden on summary judgment to show a credible threat of imminent enforcement by the City. The City had unequivocally disavowed any intent to enforce the Guaranty Law against the plaintiffs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's award of summary judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the City's request to vacate its earlier judgment reversing the dismissal of the Contracts Clause challenge and denied the City costs on the appeal due to its negligent delay in raising the enforcement-based standing challenge. View "Bochner v. City of New York" on Justia Law

In 2020, East Fork Funding LLC filed a quiet title action against U.S. Bank, N.A., regarding a mortgage recorded against East Fork’s property. The mortgage had been subject to three foreclosure actions, two of which were voluntarily discontinued by the mortgagee. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of East Fork, holding that under the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), enacted in December 2022, the voluntary discontinuances did not reset the six-year statute of limitations for bringing a foreclosure action. Consequently, the statute of limitations continued to run from the commencement of the first foreclosure action in 2010 and expired six years later, entitling East Fork to quiet title.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of East Fork. The court held that FAPA applied retroactively to the voluntary discontinuances, meaning they did not reset the statute of limitations. Therefore, the statute of limitations began running with the filing of the 2010 action and expired before East Fork commenced the quiet title action. The court also found that retroactive application of FAPA did not violate the U.S. Constitution and that even under pre-FAPA law, the statute of limitations had expired.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is currently reviewing the case. The main issue on appeal is whether FAPA applies retroactively to voluntary discontinuances that occurred before its enactment. The court has certified this question to the New York Court of Appeals, as it is a novel question of state law necessary to resolve the appeal. The Second Circuit seeks clarification on whether Sections 4 and/or 8 of FAPA apply to a unilateral voluntary discontinuance taken prior to the Act’s enactment. The court retains jurisdiction pending the New York Court of Appeals' response. View "E. Fork Funding LLC v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

Manuel Antonio Suquilanda was convicted of unlawfully reentering the United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenged his conviction on two grounds: first, that the initial removal proceedings were invalid because the Notice to Appear (NTA) he received lacked the place of hearing and address-of-filing information, thus stripping the Immigration Court of jurisdiction; and second, that § 1326 is unconstitutional as it discriminates against Latin Americans, violating the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Suquilanda’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The court held that any defect in the NTA did not deprive the Immigration Court of jurisdiction, referencing the Second Circuit’s precedent in Banegas Gomez v. Barr. The court also concluded that the address-of-filing requirement was a non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rule. On the constitutional challenge, the court found that while the 1929 Act had discriminatory intent, Suquilanda failed to show that the 1952 reenactment of § 1326 was motivated by racial animus.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the missing hearing information in the NTA was cured by a subsequent notice, and the address-of-filing requirement was non-jurisdictional. On the constitutional issue, the court applied the Arlington Heights framework and found that Suquilanda did not demonstrate that racial discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in the 1952 enactment of § 1326. Consequently, the court concluded that § 1326 does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. View "United States v. Suquilanda" on Justia Law

In 2019, Joseph Srour was denied a permit to possess rifles and shotguns in his home by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) License Division. Srour subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief, challenging the constitutionality of various provisions of the New York City Administrative Code and the Rules of the City of New York, particularly the requirement that an applicant have "good moral character" to be issued a permit.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Srour's motion for summary judgment regarding the New York City Administrative Code, enjoining the enforcement of the "good moral character" and "good cause" requirements, and declaring them unconstitutional. The district court did not decide the amount of damages. The City of New York and the NYPD Police Commissioner filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking review of the district court's judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the case was moot because Srour had been granted the rifle and shotgun permit he sought. The court found that there was no reasonable expectation that the City would resume the challenged conduct, as Srour's permit was subject to automatic renewal unless he violated laws or was rearrested. Consequently, the court vacated the district court's judgment enjoining the enforcement of the "good moral character" requirement and declaring it unconstitutional, dismissed the appeal as moot, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Srour's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as moot. View "Srour v. New York City" on Justia Law

In June 2020, plaintiffs were arrested for violating a week-long nighttime curfew imposed by New York City in response to violence and destruction during demonstrations protesting George Floyd's death. They claimed the curfew violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, particularly the right to travel.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' § 1983 putative class action. The court determined that the curfew had to withstand strict scrutiny but concluded that it did so because it served a compelling governmental interest in curbing escalating crime and restoring public order and was narrowly tailored to that interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the curfew satisfied strict scrutiny. The court found that the curfew served a compelling state interest in reducing crime and restoring public order, which was escalating unpredictably across the city. The curfew was narrowly tailored, being limited in duration to one week, applied only during nighttime hours, and included exceptions for essential workers and homeless individuals. The court concluded that the curfew was the least restrictive means available to address the compelling public interest, given the circumstances of escalating violence and destruction. Thus, the plaintiffs' right-to-travel claim was dismissed as a matter of law. View "Jeffery v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Gilead Community Services, Inc. and Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Inc. sued the Town of Cromwell and several of its officials for discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Gilead had purchased a house in Cromwell to be used as a group home for individuals with mental health disabilities. Following significant opposition from town residents and officials, including discriminatory statements and actions by the town's mayor and manager, Gilead was forced to close the group home. The town's actions included petitioning the Department of Public Health to deny a license for the home, issuing a cease-and-desist letter, and denying a tax exemption application.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut found the Town of Cromwell liable for violating the FHA and ADA, awarding $181,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The town appealed, arguing that the district court erred in applying a motivating-factor causation test to FHA claims, in subjecting the municipality to vicarious liability and punitive damages under the FHA, and that the punitive damages were unconstitutionally excessive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Cromwell's arguments regarding the causation standard, vicarious liability, and the availability of punitive damages under the FHA. The court held that motivating-factor causation applies to FHA claims, municipalities can be held vicariously liable under the FHA, and the FHA allows for punitive damages against municipalities. However, the court found the $5 million punitive damages award to be unconstitutionally excessive, given the high ratio of punitive to compensatory damages and the disparity with civil penalties for similar conduct.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in part, vacated the punitive damages award, and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to grant a new trial on punitive damages unless Gilead agrees to a remittitur reducing the punitive damages to $2 million. View "Gilead Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Cromwell" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Basel Soukaneh, alleged that during a routine traffic stop, Officer Nicholas Andrzejewski of the Waterbury, Connecticut police department unlawfully handcuffed and detained him in a police vehicle for over half an hour and conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle. Soukaneh had presented a valid firearms permit and disclosed the presence of a firearm in his vehicle. Andrzejewski argued that the presence of the firearm gave him probable cause to detain Soukaneh and search his vehicle.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut partially granted and partially denied Andrzejewski’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the initial stop was justified based on reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. However, it denied summary judgment regarding the handcuffing and prolonged detention of Soukaneh, as well as the searches of the vehicle and trunk, concluding that Andrzejewski did not have the requisite probable cause and was not entitled to qualified immunity for these actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Andrzejewski violated Soukaneh’s Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him in a manner and for a length of time that constituted a de facto arrest without probable cause. The court also found that the warrantless searches of Soukaneh’s vehicle and trunk were not justified under the automobile exception or as a Terry frisk, as there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a crime. Consequently, Andrzejewski was not entitled to qualified immunity for his actions. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski" on Justia Law

In 2021, Ellva Slaughter was charged with illegally possessing a firearm while knowing he had previously been convicted of a felony, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Slaughter moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the jury selection plan of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) systematically underrepresented Black and Hispanic or Latino people, violating his Sixth Amendment right and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (JSSA). The district court assumed the underrepresentation was significant but denied the motion, finding Slaughter failed to prove systematic exclusion in the jury selection process.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Slaughter's motion to dismiss the indictment. The court assumed without deciding that there was significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic or Latino people but concluded that Slaughter did not establish that this underrepresentation was due to systematic exclusion. The court found that Slaughter's expert did not provide evidence that the identified practices caused the disparities and noted that many of the challenged practices were authorized by the Second Circuit. The court also found that any disparities were due to external factors outside the SDNY's control.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the framework from Duren v. Missouri, assuming without deciding that the underrepresentation was significant. However, it concluded that Slaughter did not meet his burden of proving systematic exclusion. The court found that Slaughter's expert did not provide sufficient evidence that the SDNY's practices caused the underrepresentation. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Slaughter failed to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement under the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA. View "United States v. Slaughter" on Justia Law

Laurie Weinlein was convicted of bank fraud and embezzlement from an employee benefit plan, resulting in a sentence of sixty-three months in prison, five years of supervised release, and over $2 million in restitution payments. The crimes were committed in 1994 and 1995. At that time, the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) stipulated that restitution obligations terminated twenty years from the date of judgment. In 1996, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) extended the enforcement period for restitution orders. In 2021, Weinlein moved to terminate her restitution obligation, arguing that the VWPA’s enforcement period had expired and that applying the MVRA retroactively violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied Weinlein’s motion to terminate her restitution obligation. The court held that retroactive application of the MVRA’s enforcement period did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Weinlein then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that retroactively applying the MVRA’s longer enforcement period did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The court reasoned that the MVRA did not increase the punishment for Weinlein’s crime but merely extended the time period over which the government could collect the restitution. The court concluded that the punishment imposed by the restitution order remained the same, and the extension of the enforcement period did not constitute a greater punishment than what was originally imposed. View "United States v. Weinlein" on Justia Law