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

Petitioner, as assignee of his brother's interest in the forfeited property ($50,000 in bail money), appealed the district court's denial of his motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 983(e)(1). The district court dismissed the petition, holding that the assignment was invalid because the forfeiture had been completed and all interest in the property had vested in the United States at the time of the assignment. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the Act permits any person with an interest in forfeited property to file a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture after the forfeiture has occurred on grounds of lack of notice. The court also concluded that the assignment of petitioner's brother's interest to him was valid under New York law. View "Lucas v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of New York State's requirement that all children be vaccinated in order to attend public school. The statute provides two exemptions from the immunization mandate: a medical exemption and a religious exemption. Rejecting plaintiffs' substantive due process, free exercise of religion, equal protection, and Ninth Amendment challenges, the court concluded that the statute and regulation are a constitutionally permissible exercise of the State's police power and do not infringe on the free exercise of religion. The court further concluded that plaintiff's remaining arguments are either meritless or waived. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss. View "Phillips v. City of New York" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from plaintiffs' request for tuition assistance for their daughter under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision to deny reimbursement for private schooling and the district court reversed in part and ordered the school district to reimburse plaintiffs for May 1, 2009 to May 31, 2009, and for the 2009-2010 school year. Because the court deferred to the SRO's determination that plaintiffs did not meet their obligation to demonstrate the appropriateness of their daughter's placement, plaintiffs cannot recover under the IDEA for any portion of the time she was placed at Family Foundation. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for entry of an order affirming the SRO's decision. View "Hardison v. Bd. of Ed. Oneonta City Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Intervenors, a group of police unions, challenged the ruling of the district court that the City of New York's "stop-and-frisk" policy was carried out in a discriminatory manner, as well as its imposition of various reforms to that policy. These cases were previously ordered to be reassigned to a different district court judge. The new district judge denied the unions' motion to intervene in these cases and the unions appeal. At issue was whether public-sector unions may intervene into a litigation where the actual parties to that litigation, including a newly-elected mayoral administration, have agreed to a settlement. The court held that the unions' motions to intervene are untimely and do not assert an interest that the law seeks to protect; the unions knew, or should have known, of their alleged interests in these controversial and public cases well before they filed their motions; granting the unions' motions in the wake of the mayoral election would essentially condone a collateral attack on the democratic process and could erode the legitimacy of decisions made by the democratically-elected representatives of the people; and the unions' interests in their members' reputations and collective bargaining rights are, as a matter of law, too remote from the "subject of the action" to warrant intervention as a "party." View "Floyd v. City of New York" on Justia Law

This case concerns compliance reports regarding improving conditions in two correctional facilities under a settlement agreement between the United States and Erie County. The NYCLU sought to intervene in order to have the reports unsealed. The court held that the public's fundamental right of access to judicial documents, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was wrongly denied when the compliance reports in this case were sealed. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision and ordered that the judicial documents be unsealed.View "United States v. Erie County" on Justia Law

The FTC appealed the damages portion of a district court order granting in part the FTC's motion for contempt relating to defendants' violation of a Consent Order. The FTC argued that it was entitled to a presumption that consumers relied, when deciding to purchase defendants' products, on defendants' omissions and misrepresentations. Therefore, the FTC sought over $14 million in contempt damages, an amount equal to defendants' gross receipts. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the FTC may pursue recovery for contempt damages based on alleged violations of a Consent Order. The court agreed with the FTC and joined its sister circuits in holding that the FTC is entitled to a presumption of consumer reliance. Here, in the context of a contempt action arising out of violations of a promise to refrain from misrepresentations concerning material terms or omissions of material terms, the court held that the calculation of the appropriate measure of loss begins with defendants' gross receipts derived from such contumacious conduct. After the court uses defendants' gross receipts as a baseline for calculating damages, the court must permit defendants to put forth evidence showing that certain amounts should offset the sanctions assessed against them. The court vacated that portion of the district court's contempt order that has calculated damages and remanded for further proceedings.View "FTC v. BlueHippo, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his claims against Pfizer for alleged violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, and state law equivalents. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the court could not discern how much of the complaint the district court intended to dismiss. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.View "United States, ex rel. Dr. Jesse Polansky v. Pfizer, Inc." on Justia Law

The County appealed the district court's order preliminarily enjoining it from foreclosing upon certain real property owned by the Cayuga Nation in order to recover uncollected ad valorem property taxes. The court affirmed the district court's injunction where the court declined, as has the Supreme Court, to read a "commercial activity" exception into the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity from suit. In the absence of a waiver of immunity by the tribe, unless Congress has authorized the suit, precedents demand that the court affirm the district court's injunction of the County's foreclosure proceedings against the Cayuga Nation's property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Seneca County, New York" on Justia Law

Claimant appealed from the district court's order of forfeiture seizing roughly $750,000 in cash, arguing that the district court erred in granting the government's motion for a default judgment against the res without first considering his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's judgment of forfeiture because claimant failed to establishing standing to challenge the forfeiture. View "United States v. Vazquez-Alvarez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs contend that the FDA is required by 21 U.S.C. 360b(e)(1) to proceed with hearings to determine whether to withdraw approval for the use of penicillin and tetracyclines in animal feed, and that the FDA's denial of two citizen petitions demanding such hearings was arbitrary or capricious within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 706(2). Based on the court's survey of the text, the context, the regulations, and the background legal principles, the court concluded that Congress has not required the FDA to hold hearings whenever FDA officials have scientific concerns about the safety of animal drug usage, that the FDA retains the discretion to institute or terminate proceedings to withdraw approval of animal drugs by issuing or withdrawing notices of opportunity for hearing (NOOHs), and that the statutory mandate contained in section 360b(e)(1) applies to limit the FDA's remedial discretion by requiring withdrawal of approval of animal drugs or particular uses of such drugs only when the FDA has made a final determination, after notice and hearing, that the drug could pose a threat to human health and safety. The court also concluded that it is not arbitrary or capricious for the FDA to pursue policies intended to reduce the use of animal feed containing antibiotics through a variety of steps short of withdrawing approval for the use of antibiotics in feed via a protracted administrative process and likely litigation. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment to the contrary and remanded for further proceedings.View "NRDC v. US FDA" on Justia Law