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

In 2000, the Secretary of Health and Human Services issued a regulation, known as the “reclassification rule,” 42 C.F.R. 412.230(a)(5)(iii), which provided that a hospital that has been reclassified from urban to rural under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(8)(E), may not thereafter receive an additional reclassification by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board (MGCRB) for reclassification as urban under subsection (d)(10). Lawrence filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from applying the Secretary's reclassification rule to Lawrence's MGCRB application. The district court denied the motion. However, the court found the statutory language to be plain and unambiguous, and at odds with the Secretary’s reclassification rule, 42 C.F.R. 412.230(a)(5)(iii). Therefore, the court declared the regulation invalid and reversed the judgment of the district court, remanding for a determination of the appropriate remedy. View "Lawrence + Memorial Hosp. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Main Street filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), seeking a judicial order compelling the NSC to produce requested records. The district court concluded that the NSC was not an agency and dismissed the case on the merits. On de novo review, the court construed the “agency” provision of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 551(1), 552(f)(1), the “function” provisions of the NSC’s statute, 50 U.S.C. 3021(a), and the current presidential directive organizing the NSC System, among other available legal sources, and concluded that the NSC is not an agency subject to the FOIA. The court further construed the FOIA's agency requirement to relate to the court’s remedial power rather than to its subject‐matter jurisdiction and concluded that the district court properly granted dismissal for failure to state a claim, rather than for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in granting dismissal without discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Main Street Legal Servs. v. National Security Council" on Justia Law

The NYTimes challenged the district court's decision and order regarding requests for disclosure of information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, related to targeted killings by the use of drone aircraft. On a prior appeal, the court ordered disclosure of a 2010 document known as the "OLC-DOD Memorandum," advising as to the legality of the targeted drone attacks. In this appeal, the court concluded that all the OLC documents at issue shall remain undisclosed, except Exhibit K (the redacted version of Exhibit 15 B), which the district court has authorized to be disclosed; that the redacted portions of the district court’s opinion shall remain undisclosed, except for the three paragraphs on page 9, which the district court wishes disclosed; and that the redactions from the transcript of the June 23 hearing may remain undisclosed. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment, authorized the district court to disclose the three redacted paragraphs on page 9 of its opinion, and maintained undisclosed the redacted portions of the district court’s opinion and the June 23, 2015, transcript. View "The New York Times Co. v. US DOJ" on Justia Law

Keepers appealed, and the City cross-appealed, from partial summary judgment awards. At issue are two questions related to Chapter 2.3 of Milford’s municipal code, which regulates “adult‐oriented establishments.” First, whether the district court improperly considered the affidavit of the police chief in granting partial summary judgment to the City. The court concluded that the district court did not “abuse its discretion” in considering the affidavit and therefore affirmed as to this issue. Second, whether the City’s requirement that sexually oriented businesses publicly post the names of their operators, officers, and significant owners violates the First Amendment. The court concluded that the district court should not have reached the merits of that issue, nor does this Court do so, because Keepers’ First Amendment challenge does not present a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Even if Keepers originally had standing to challenge the public‐posting requirement based on its asserted right against compelled speech, the case has become moot on appeal. Therefore, the court vacated as to this issue and remanded with directions. View "Keepers Inc. v. City of Milford" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging violation of his due process rights and that defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously by terminating his employment. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject‐matter jurisdiction. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff does not have a private right of action under the Due Process Clause of the sort recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Therefore, the court concluded that this claim was properly dismissed. However, the court found that the district court erred in determining that it lacked subject‐matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Atterbury v. U.S. Marshals Service" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from a decade-long dispute over whether the County has adequately analyzed - in its applications for HUD funds - impediments to fair housing within the County’s jurisdictions. The County challenges final administrative determinations by HUD to withhold funds allocated to the County under the Community Planning and Development Formula Grant Programs (“CPD funds”) for fiscal years (“FY”) 2011, 2013 and 2014. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding that HUD’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious and that 42 U.S.C. 12705 and section 12711 did “not relieve the County of its obligation to make accurate Certifications and to produce adequate analysis impediments in order to obtain CPD Funds.” The court agreed, concluding that HUD’s withholding of CPD funds did not violate federal law. However, the court vacated in part the temporary injunction issued pendente lite. HUD is authorized to reallocate the County’s FY 2013 funds forthwith. As to the County’s FY 2014 funds, however, HUD is directed to delay reallocating those funds until after the County exhausts its right to seek further review of this decision. View "City of Westchester v. HUD" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, eight male, "out-of-status" aliens who were arrested on immigration charges and detained following the September 11th attacks, filed a putative class action asserting various claims arising out of the discriminatory and punitive treatment they suffered while confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) or the Passaic County Jail (Passaic). The district court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that: (1) the MDC plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a substantive due process claim against the DOJ defendants, against Hasty with regard to both official and unofficial conditions, and against Sherman with regard to official conditions only, and these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; (2) the MDC plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an equal protection claim against the DOJ defendants, Hasty, and Sherman, and these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; (3) the free exercise claim is dismissed as to all defendants; (4) the MDC plaintiffs have plausibly alleged their Fourth Amendment strip search claim against Hasty and Sherman, and these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; (5) the MDC plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the Section 1985(3) conspiracy claim against the DOJ defendants, Hasty, and Sherman, and these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; and (6) the MDC plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged any claims against Zenk.  The court affirmed the dismissal of the claims brought by the Passaic plaintiffs. View "Turkmen v. Hasty, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Sheriff's Department and others, alleging that he was severely beaten by deputy sheriffs while being detained in a holding cell. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court vacated the district court's judgment, remanding for further proceedings because failure to exhaust under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), is an affirmative defense, and because the evidence adduced by defendants - principally in the form of a conclusory affidavit - does not suffice to establish the defense as a matter of law. The court need not consider plaintiff's remaining arguments. View "Hubbs v. Suffolk Cnty. Sheriff's Dept." on Justia Law

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has regulatory authority over interstate aspects of the nation’s electric power system, but not over “facilities used in local distribution or only for the transmission of electric energy in intrastate commerce,” 16 U.S.C. 824(a). FERC entered orders adopting standards and procedures for determining which power distribution facilities are subject to the agency’s regulatory jurisdiction and which facilities fall within the statutory exception for local distribution of electric energy. The state and the Public Service Commission of the State of New York challenged the standards and procedures as an unreasonable interpretation of the agency’s statutory grant of jurisdiction and as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Second Circuit upheld the orders as reasonably interpreting the agency’s regulatory jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act as amended by the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005 and supported by sufficient explanation and substantial evidence as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. View "New York v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) orders issued in 2013 and 2014 approved the New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) creation of a new wholesale electric power “capacity zone” comprising areas of Southeastern New York, including the lower Hudson Valley. The orders followed NYISO’s identification of areas in which customers received power from suppliers located on the other side of a “transmission constraint” in the electrical grid. Because of the way New York’s capacity markets work, NYISO concluded that financial incentives for capacity resources in the transmission‐constrained area that became the Valley Zone were inadequate, jeopardizing the reliability of the grid. FERC’s approval of the Zone, with a new “demand curve” to set capacity prices, were designed to address the reliability problem by providing more accurate price signals to in‐zone resources, but were expected to result in higher prices to customers. Utilities, the state, and the New York Public Service Commission alleged that FERC failed adequately to justify the expected higher prices, particularly without a “phase‐in” of the new zone and its demand curve, in violation of FERC’s statutory mandate to ensure that rates are “just and reasonable,” 16 U.S.C. 824d(a). The Second Circuit rejected the challenge. FERC adequately justified its decisions. View "Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law