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

Plaintiff, acting as administratrix of her daughter's estate, filed a complaint against the County and others, seeking damages for the daughter's death. The parties subsequently negotiated a settlement. In this separate action, plaintiff and her attorney alleged that the County intentionally delayed approving the settlement in retaliation for their protected First Amendment activities. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint because plaintiffs had no right to have the settlement approved at all, much less by a certain date. View "Dorsett v. County of Nassau" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and her three children, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging that the removal of the children from plaintiff's home without a court order violated their rights to due process of law and to freedom from unreasonable seizures. The court held that the state official who takes a child into custody without parental consent or court order was entitled to qualified immunity if there was an objectively reasonable basis to believe that there was an imminent threat of harm to the child. Based upon the evidence in the record - including the history of domestic violence between plaintiff and the children's father, the violation of the protective order, and the Superior Court's finding that the children were in immediate physical danger - defendants' decision to take the children into state custody was objectively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants based upon qualified immunity. View "Doe v. Whelan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, visual artists who sell their works on sidewalks and in public parks, filed suit against the City challenging the 2010 revisions to vending regulations. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the vending regulations were valid content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions subject to intermediate scrutiny where the City's interests - alleviating congestion and improving circulation, promoting the aesthetics of the parks, and ensuring that the parks were available to the public for a wide range of activities - were significant, and the regulations were narrowly tailored. The court also affirmed the district court's issue of a protective order in response to plaintiffs' request to depose Mayor Bloomberg and former Deputy Mayor Skyler. View "Lederman v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Parks & Recreation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq., alleging that his neighborhood diner violated the ADA by having a wheelchair inaccessible entrance and other barriers that made the diner wheelchair-inaccessible. The court concluded that plaintiff had standing to challenge the diner's inaccessible entrance even though he had never attempted to enter the diner; plaintiff alleged that the step deterred him from frequenting the diner; the diner had not indicated an intent to remedy this barrier; and plaintiff's testimony and proximity to the diner created a reasonable inference that he would frequent the diner were the violation remedied. Because plaintiff had standing to pursue injunctive relief as to the diner's entrance, he had standing to seek removal of all barriers inside the diner related to his disability that he would likely encounter were he able to access the diner. The court rejected defendants' claims that the district court incorrectly determined that constructing a permanent ramp was readily achievable where defendants failed to support their assertion. The court rejected defendants' remaining claims and affirmed the district court's grant of injunctive relief to plaintiff, as well as compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. View "Kreisler v. Second Avenue Diner Corp." on Justia Law

Press intervenors appealed the district court's decision denying them access to court proceedings and a sealed internal police document (Report) and continuing to redact parts of hearing transcripts. The court concluded that the district court erred by declining to order release of the full transcript of the contempt hearing, but that given the minimal relevance of portions of the Report that were not testified to at the contempt hearing to the substance of that proceeding, the Report did not become a judicial document to which the First Amendment right applied. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to the Report, reversed as to the hearing transcript; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Newsday v. County of Nassau" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit to contest a wage freeze imposed in 2011 on Nassau County employees by the Nassau Interim Finance Authority (NIFA). The police unions contended that the wage freeze was imposed in violation of the Contracts Clause, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, and that the authority conferred on NIFA to impose such a freeze had expired under the terms of the applicable statute, N.Y. Pub. Auth. Law 3669(3). The district court granted summary judgment to the police unions on their state law claim without reaching the constitutional question. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the district judge should have declined to reach the pendant state law claim, which required it to interpret, as a matter of first impression, an important state legislative scheme to prevent the fiscal demise of Nassau County. View "Carver v. Nassau County Interim Finance" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, representative of the estate of her deceased son, filed suit against the City of New York, police officers, and others, alleging that they were liable for her son's death. A jury found in favor of defendants. The court held that, where a municipality acted in a governmental capacity, a plaintiff could not recover without proving that the municipality owed a "special duty" to the injured party. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving a special relationship, and where the plaintiff failed to meet this burden, the analysis ended and liability could not be imputed to the municipality that acted in a governmental capacity. The distinction between nonfeasance and misfeasance was irrelevant to the analysis and the existence of a special relationship was a question of law that could be properly submitted to the jury. In this instance, the court found no error entitling plaintiff to a new trial and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Velez v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against New York state prison officials alleging that they substantially burdened his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1, and that they infringed his due process and First Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. This appeal arose when defendants instigated a disciplinary proceeding against plaintiff, an inmate and a Muslim, after an interaction in which plaintiff gave Chaboty a Quran. The court concluded that plaintiff's RLUIPA claim must fail because RLUIPA did not authorize monetary damages against state officers in their official capacities, and did not create a private right of action against state officers in their individual capacities. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's RLUIPA claim. View "Washington v. Gonyea" on Justia Law

Time Warner petitioned for review of the FCC's 2011 order promulgated under section 616(a)(3) and (5) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act), as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Cable Act), 47 U.S.C. 536(a)(3), (5). Section 616(a)(3) and (5) and that part of the 2011 Order establishing the standard for demonstrating a prima facie violation of these statutory provisions (the program carriage regime) were intended to curb anticompetitive behavior by limiting the circumstances under which a distributor of video programming could discriminate against unaffiliated networks that provided such programming. The court concluded that the program carriage regime did not violate the First Amendment where its case-specific standards for identifying affiliation-based discrimination served important government interests in promoting competition and diversity in an industry still posing serious competitive risks and were narrowly tailored not to burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests. The court concluded, however, that the 2011 Order was substantive and therefore subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. Because the FCC failed to comply with such requirements, the court granted the petition for review insofar as it raised an APA challenge. View "Time Warner Cable Inc. v. FCC" on Justia Law

This case arose when appellant settled an environmental enforcement action brought against him by the United States through a consent decree providing, inter alia, that defendant would pay the government an amount equal to the fair market value of a parcel of real property owned by appellant. At issue on appeal was whether a district court, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), and the Anti-Injunction Act, 22 U.S.C. 2283, had the authority to enjoin a party from litigating in state court issues arising out of the consent decree which settled the civil action brought against the party in federal court by the United States. The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not permit the district court in this case to enjoin appellant's state court suit. Accordingly, the court vacated the injunction, concluding that the district court erred by relying on the "in aid of jurisdiction" exception to the Anti-Injunction Act in enjoining appellant's state court suit. View "United States v. Manne" on Justia Law