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

Plaintiff sued the District, contending that it was deliberately indifferent to his harassment when he attended Stissing Mountain High School. A jury found the District liable for violating Title VI and awarded plaintiff $1.25 million in damages. The district court denied the District's motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), but granted remittitur of the jury award to $1 million. The District appealed. The court held that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's finding that the District's responses to student harassment of plaintiff amounted to deliberate indifference to discrimination and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law. Given the ongoing and objective offensiveness of the student-on-student harassment here, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the record could support an award of $1 million. View "Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School Dist." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a conviction of conspiracy to introduce a misbranded drug into interstate commerce, a misdemeanor violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 333(a)(1). Defendant, a pharmaceutical sales representative, promoted the drug Xyrem for "off-label use." The court agreed with defendant that he was convicted for his speech -- for promoting an FDA-approved drug for off-label use -- in violation of his right of free speech under the First Amendment. The court limited its holding to FDA-approved drugs for which off-label use was not prohibited. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Caronia" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Malaysian citizen who has overstayed his immigrant visa in the United States, sought an adjustment of immigration status. Petitioner invoked the so-called "grandfathering" exception for beneficiaries of labor-certification applications filed by April 30, 2001 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)(B)(ii). The Attorney General has interpreted that provision as applying only to beneficiaries actually listed on labor-certification applications as of April 30, 2001. The court held that 8 C.F.R. 245.10(j) and section 1245.10(j), in which the Attorney General set forth this interpretation, was entitled to Chevron deference. Accordingly, the IJ and BIA properly determined that petitioner was ineligible for a change of immigration status because he was not listed as a beneficiary on an application for labor certification until after April 30, 2001. The court denied the petition for review. View "Lee v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction of two counts of sex trafficking of a minor. At issue was the appropriate construction of 18 U.S.C. 1591(c), an evidentiary provision added by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044. The court held that this provision, when applicable, imposed strict liability with regard to defendant's awareness of the victim's age, thus relieving the government's usual burden to prove knowledge or reckless disregard of the victim's underage status under section 1591(a). The court rejected defendant's remaining evidentiary and sentencing challenges as lacking merit and therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Four partners and employees of Ernst & Young, one of the largest accounting firms in the world, appealed their convictions in connection with the development and defense of five "tax shelters" that were sold or implemented by the firm between 1999 and 2001. At issue, among other things, was the scope of criminal liability in a conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. 371 and the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the criminal intent of certain defendants. The court held, among other things, that defendants' challenge to the so-called Klein conspiracy theory of criminal liability under section 371 failed under the law of the Circuit, which remained good law absent review or modification by the Supreme Court; with respect to sufficiency challenges, the court reversed some convictions based on insufficient evidence; and venue was proper with respect to Count Six, which charged defendant Vaughn with false statements to the IRS. The court addressed the remaining issues and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "United States v. Coplan (Nissenbaum)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was arrested for third-degree menacing under New York law and brought an action against defendants for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff also sued the City of White Plains under section 1983 for failure to train and supervise the arresting officers. Plaintiff approached a woman in her driveway, questioned her about members of her household, and insisted that her car had hit his. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. The court vacated the judgment of the district court. The order granting summary judgment to all defendants on the theory that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity was reversed; denying partial summary judgment on plaintiff's state law false arrest claims against the arresting officers and the City was reversed; and denying partial summary judgment for plaintiff against the officers under section 1983 was reversed. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants on the Monell claim and the dismissal of all malicious prosecution claims under New York law and section 1983. The court remanded with instructions to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability for his state law false arrest claims against the officers and the City; against the officers under section 1983 for his false arrest claims; and for the dismissal of the affirmative defenses of probable cause. View "Ackerson v. City of White Plains" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, barring New York State handgun licensing officials from requiring that applicants prove "proper cause" to obtain licenses to carry handguns for self-defense pursuant to New York Penal Law section 400.00(2)(f). They argued that application for section 400.00(2)(f) violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Because the proper cause requirement was substantially related to New York's compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kachalsky v. Cacace" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants unlawfully retaliated against him after he spoke out about issues involving his employer, the Long Beach Fire Department. The district court dismissed some of the claims against some of the defendants and the remaining individual defendants sought to appeal the denial of their dismissal motion, raising a defense of qualified immunity. The court held, however, that it lacked jurisdiction to consider their appeal because they did not file a timely notice of appeal that specified that they intended to appeal. View "Gusler v. The City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from her drug related convictions. Defendant challenged the district court's denial of her pretrial motion to suppress the drugs. The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that exigent circumstances justified the DEA agents' warrantless entry into defendant's room. Further, the court found no error in the district court's finding that defendant's consent was voluntary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moreno" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq., following the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was dismissed from Valley View's volunteer program after engaging in erratic and harassing behavior towards female staff. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether he was discriminated against because of his disability. View "McElwee v. County of Orange" on Justia Law