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

A nonprofit organization sought to provide free legal advice to low-income New Yorkers facing debt-collection lawsuits by training nonlawyer “Justice Advocates” to help individuals complete a state-issued check-the-box answer form. The organization and a prospective Justice Advocate argued that many defendants in such cases default due to lack of understanding, leading to severe consequences. However, New York law prohibits nonlawyers from providing individualized legal advice, and all parties agreed that the proposed activities would violate the state’s unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statutes.The plaintiffs filed a pre-enforcement challenge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that applying the UPL statutes to their activities would violate their First Amendment rights. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits, holding that the UPL statutes, as applied, were a content-based regulation of speech that could not survive strict scrutiny. The court granted a preliminary injunction, barring the Attorney General from enforcing the UPL statutes against the plaintiffs and participants in their program.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that the UPL statutes, as applied, regulate speech. However, the Second Circuit held that the regulation is content neutral, not content based, and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. Because the district court applied the wrong standard, the Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard. The court did not reach a final decision on whether the statutes, as applied, ultimately violate the First Amendment, leaving that determination for the district court on remand. View "Upsolve, Inc. v. James" on Justia Law

Two former employees of a fire alarm and sprinkler company provided fire alarm testing and inspection services on public works projects in New York. They alleged that their employer failed to pay them the prevailing wages required by New York Labor Law § 220, which mandates that workers on public works projects receive at least the prevailing rate of wages. The contracts between the employer and various public entities included clauses that either disclaimed the applicability of prevailing wage laws, were silent on the issue, or referenced prevailing wage rates. Many contracts also contained a provision shortening the statute of limitations for any action against the company to one year.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted partial summary judgment in favor of the employer on all prevailing wage-related claims. The court found that: (1) the contracts did not expressly promise to pay prevailing wages; (2) the one-year contractual limitations period barred the claims; and (3) fire alarm testing and inspection work was not covered by § 220’s prevailing wage requirement. The court also dismissed related quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims and later approved a class action settlement on other claims, with the prevailing wage claims reserved for appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, based on a 2009 New York State Department of Labor opinion letter and relevant precedent, fire alarm testing and inspection work is covered by § 220, entitling the plaintiffs to prevailing wages. However, the Second Circuit found New York law unsettled on whether a promise to pay prevailing wages is implicit in every public works contract (even if not expressly stated) and whether a contractual one-year limitations period is enforceable against workers’ third-party beneficiary claims. The court therefore certified these two questions to the New York Court of Appeals for resolution. View "Walton v. Comfort Systems" on Justia Law

In 2019, a well-known advice columnist publicly accused a sitting U.S. president of sexually assaulting her in a department store in 1996. The president, while in office, responded with public statements denying the allegations, asserting he did not know the accuser, and claiming she fabricated the story for personal and political gain. The accuser then filed a defamation lawsuit in New York state court, alleging that these statements were false and damaged her reputation. The case was removed to federal court after the Department of Justice certified that the president acted within the scope of his office, but the DOJ later withdrew this certification. During the litigation, the accuser also brought a separate lawsuit under a new state law allowing survivors of sexual assault to sue regardless of the statute of limitations, which resulted in a jury finding that the president had sexually abused and defamed her after leaving office.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial summary judgment for the accuser in the original defamation case, relying on issue preclusion from the verdict in the later case. The trial was limited to damages, and the jury awarded the accuser $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The president moved for a new trial or remittitur, arguing, among other things, that he was entitled to presidential immunity, that the damages were excessive, and that the jury instructions were erroneous. The district court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the president had waived any claim to absolute presidential immunity by failing to timely assert it, and that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Trump v. United States did not alter this conclusion. The court also found no error in the district court’s application of issue preclusion, evidentiary rulings, or jury instructions, and concluded that the damages awarded were reasonable and not excessive. The judgment in favor of the accuser was affirmed in full. View "Carroll v. Trump" on Justia Law

A U.K. citizen and former hedge fund manager predicted that the South African rand would strengthen against the U.S. dollar following a South African election. Acting on this belief, he purchased a one-touch barrier option for his hedge fund, which would pay $20 million if the rand-to-dollar exchange rate dropped below 12.50 before the option’s expiration. As the expiration approached and the rate hovered just above the threshold, he instructed a banker in Singapore to sell large amounts of dollars for rand to push the exchange rate below 12.50, thereby triggering the option and securing the payout for his fund. The trades were executed while he was in South Africa, and the payout obligations ultimately fell on U.S.-based financial institutions.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York indicted him for commodities fraud and conspiracy to commit commodities fraud under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). At trial, the government presented evidence of his intent to manipulate the market to trigger the option. The jury convicted him of commodities fraud but acquitted him of conspiracy. The district court denied his post-trial motions for acquittal or a new trial, finding sufficient evidence of a direct and significant connection to U.S. commerce, adequate jury instructions, and no due process violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. The court held that the CEA’s extraterritoriality provision applied because the conduct had a direct and significant connection to U.S. commerce, given that U.S. financial institutions bore the payout risk. The court also found the jury instructions on intent and materiality were proper, that proof of an artificial price was not required under the charged anti-fraud provision, and that the defendant had fair notice his conduct was unlawful. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Nine inmates at a Connecticut correctional facility challenged their confinement in a unit known as Q-Pod, which is used to transition inmates from more restrictive housing back to the general population. The plaintiffs alleged that Q-Pod imposed harsher conditions than the general population, including extended periods of isolation, unsanitary conditions due to toilet restrictions, lack of access to medical care and counseling, limited vocational and educational opportunities, and restricted religious services. Two plaintiffs specifically claimed they were denied access to Native American religious practices, such as sweat lodge ceremonies and smudging, which are congregate religious activities.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to the prison officials on the basis of qualified immunity for all federal claims, finding that the conditions in Q-Pod did not rise to the level of constitutional violations under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments, and that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment free exercise claims. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and denied injunctive relief as moot. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as to the Eighth Amendment, procedural due process, and the free exercise claims of seven plaintiffs, holding that the conditions and restrictions in Q-Pod did not violate clearly established law. However, the Second Circuit reversed as to the free exercise claims of two plaintiffs who were denied participation in Native American congregate religious services, finding that the denial, without any penological justification, violated clearly established law. The court remanded with instructions to deny summary judgment on these claims and vacated the dismissal of the related state-law claims. View "Baltas v. Chapdelaine" on Justia Law

Several former employees of a social media company were required, as part of their hiring process, to sign agreements mandating that any employment-related disputes be resolved through individual arbitration before a specified arbitral body. These agreements allowed employees to opt out within 30 days, but those who did not were bound to arbitrate disputes under the arbitral body’s rules. After being terminated, the employees initiated arbitration proceedings, but a dispute arose over who was responsible for paying the ongoing arbitration fees. The company argued for a pro-rata split based on the agreements, while the arbitral body, referencing its own rules and minimum standards (incorporated by reference into the agreements), required the company to pay all but the initial case management fees. The company refused to pay the full amount, citing a clause that fee disputes should be resolved by the arbitrator, not the arbitral body. As a result, the arbitral body stayed the proceedings, refusing to appoint arbitrators until the fees were paid.The employees then filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to compel the company to pay the fees under the Federal Arbitration Act, arguing that the company’s refusal constituted a failure to arbitrate. The district court agreed, holding that it had authority to compel the company to pay the fees as allocated by the arbitral body, and ordered the company to do so.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that disputes over the payment of ongoing arbitration fees in the context of an ongoing arbitral proceeding are procedural matters for the arbitrator or arbitral body to resolve, not the courts. The court concluded that a party’s refusal to pay such fees does not constitute a “failure, neglect, or refusal to arbitrate” under 9 U.S.C. § 4, and therefore, the district court lacked authority to compel payment. The case was remanded with instructions to deny the petition. View "Frazier v. X Corp." on Justia Law

Mathew James, a former nurse and owner of a medical billing business, was convicted after a jury trial for health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The charges arose from a scheme in which James and his employees falsified insurance claims by “upcoding” and “unbundling” medical procedures, directed patients to emergency rooms for pre-planned surgeries, and impersonated patients in communications with insurance companies. The fraudulent activity spanned several years, involved nearly 150 physicians, and resulted in tens of thousands of claims. While some of James’s business was legitimate, the government’s evidence focused on the fraudulent aspects of his operations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Judge Seybert) presided over the trial and sentencing. The jury convicted James on most counts but acquitted him of money laundering conspiracy. During trial, jurors were inadvertently given access to transcripts of two recorded calls not admitted into evidence, but the district court declined to conduct an inquiry into the exposure, instead instructing the jury to disregard any material not in evidence. At sentencing, the court imposed a 144-month prison term, a forfeiture order of over $63 million, and restitution of nearly $337 million. The court applied sentencing enhancements for James’s leadership role and abuse of trust, and increased the sentence after considering James’s potential eligibility for earned time credits and rehabilitation programs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed James’s conviction, finding any jury exposure to extra-record material harmless. However, the court vacated the sentence, including the forfeiture and restitution orders, holding that the district court erred by enhancing the sentence based on potential earned time credits and rehabilitation program eligibility, misapplied sentencing enhancements without adequate findings, and failed to properly calculate forfeiture and restitution by including legitimate business revenue. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. James" on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition after a felony conviction. At sentencing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York imposed a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. During the sentencing hearing, the court orally imposed several “special” conditions of supervised release, as recommended in the presentence report, but did not specify or discuss any “standard” or additional discretionary conditions. The court also stated that the defendant would not be required to contribute to the cost of mental health services, contrary to a recommendation in the presentence report. However, the written judgment later included not only the special conditions but also thirteen additional discretionary “standard” conditions of supervised release, as well as a requirement that the defendant contribute to mental health service costs.After sentencing, the defendant appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to be present at sentencing was violated because the thirteen discretionary conditions were not pronounced in his presence, and that the written judgment’s requirement to pay for mental health services contradicted the oral sentence. Both parties agreed that the payment requirement should be eliminated due to this inconsistency.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the case de novo. The court overruled its prior precedent in United States v. Truscello, which had allowed non-mandatory “standard” conditions to be added to the written judgment without oral pronouncement. The Second Circuit held that all non-mandatory conditions of supervised release, including those labeled as “standard” in the Sentencing Guidelines, must be pronounced in the defendant’s presence at sentencing. The court vacated the portions of the sentence imposing the thirteen discretionary conditions and the payment requirement, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Maiorana" on Justia Law

Armistice Capital, LLC and its client fund held warrants to purchase shares in Vaxart, Inc., a biotech company developing an oral COVID-19 vaccine. Stephen J. Boyd, Armistice’s Chief Investment Officer, served on Vaxart’s board. The warrants included “blocker provisions” limiting Armistice’s ownership to 4.99% and 9.99% of Vaxart’s shares. Boyd requested that Vaxart’s board amend these provisions to allow Armistice to own up to 19.99%. The board, with full knowledge that Boyd and another director were Armistice representatives, unanimously approved the amendment. Shortly after Vaxart announced its vaccine’s selection for a federal study, Armistice exercised the warrants and sold its shares, allegedly realizing an $87 million profit.Andrew E. Roth, a Vaxart shareholder, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Armistice and Boyd, as statutory insiders, violated Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by engaging in a prohibited short-swing transaction. Roth sought disgorgement of the profits to Vaxart. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that even if a short-swing transaction occurred, they were exempt from liability under SEC Rule 16b-3(d) because the Vaxart board had approved the transaction with knowledge of all material facts. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the exemption applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The Second Circuit held that the exemption under SEC Rule 16b-3(d) applied because the transaction involved the acquisition of issuer equity securities by insiders, those insiders were directors at the time, and the transaction was approved in advance by the issuer’s board with full knowledge of the relevant relationships. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the defendants were exempt from Section 16(b) liability under Rule 16b-3(d). View "Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Joanne Sudakow entered into a contract with CleanChoice Energy, Inc. to purchase electricity. The initial agreement, which she accepted in October 2021, did not include an arbitration clause and specified that New York would be the exclusive venue for any lawsuits. About three weeks after the contract was executed, CleanChoice sent Sudakow a “Welcome Package” containing new terms, including an arbitration provision, but Sudakow did not sign or otherwise expressly assent to these new terms. She continued to pay for her electricity service until she terminated it in August 2022.Sudakow later filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging breach of contract and deceptive business practices by CleanChoice. CleanChoice moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the subsequently mailed terms. The district court denied the motion, finding that Sudakow did not have sufficient notice of the arbitration provision and had not assented to it.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Second Circuit held that Sudakow was not bound by the arbitration provision because CleanChoice failed to provide clear and conspicuous notice of the new terms, and a reasonable person would not have understood that making payments constituted assent to those terms. The court also found that the language of the subsequent terms indicated that a signature was required for assent, which Sudakow never provided. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying CleanChoice’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Sudakow v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc." on Justia Law