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

The Rockland County, New York school district is 65.7% white, 19.1% black, 10.7% Latino, and 3.3% Asian. In 2017-2018, 8,843 students attended public schools, while 29,279 students attended private schools, primarily Jewish yeshivas; 92% of public school students are black or Latino, while 98% of private-school students are white. School board candidates run for a specific seat in at-large elections; all eligible district voters vote in each race. Influential members of the private-school community have an informal slating process by which Board candidates are selected and promoted. An Orthodox Rabbi controls a slating organization that has secured victory for the white community’s preferred candidate in each contested election. Although the Organization has slated some successful minority candidates, minority voters did not prefer these candidates. Only those with connections to the Organization have been selected. When vetted, candidates were not asked about their policy views.The Second Circuit affirmed that the election system resulted in dilution of black and Latino votes, violating the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10301. The Act does not require a finding that racial motivations caused election results. The court properly relied on expert findings, that used data derived through Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding rather than the traditional Citizen Voting Age Population data. The totality of the circumstances supports a finding of impermissible vote dilution, given the near-perfect correlation between race and school-type; the scant evidence that policy preferences caused election results; the blatant neglect of minority needs; the lack of minority-preferred election success; the white-dominated slating organization; and the District's bad faith throughout the litigation. View "Clerveaux v. East Ramapo Central School District" on Justia Law

Canal appealed from the district court's judgment awarding $1.1 million in statutory damages to Omega for Canal's contributory infringement of Omega's trademarks. The infringement arose from sales of counterfeit Omega watches at Canal's property in Manhattan.The Second Circuit dismissed Canal's appeal of the denial of summary judgment, holding that the interlocutory appeal is not appealable. The court explained that once the case proceeds to a full trial on the merits, the trial record supersedes the record existing at the time of the summary judgment motion, and there is no basis for this court to review issues raised in a denied motion overtaken by trial.The court nonetheless affirmed the judgment on the merits via appeal of the jury instructions, holding that Canal's position is inconsistent with Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010), which held that a defendant may be liable for contributory trademark infringement if it was willfully blind as to the identity of potential infringers—that is, under circumstances in which the defendant did not know the identity of specific infringers. The court reasoned that this holding precludes Canal's argument that Omega needed to identify a specific infringer to whom Canal continued to lease property. At trial, Omega pursued a theory of willful blindness, and the district court's jury instructions accurately captured Tiffany's requirements. Finally, the court found no reversible error in regard to the district court's evidentiary and damages ruling. View "Omega SA v. 375 Canal, LLC" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), conspiracy to commit money laundering, substantive money laundering, and violations of the FCPA. Defendant, as an officer or director of a U.S.- based organization, paid bribes on behalf of a Chinese company to the leaders of Chad and Uganda in exchange for commercial advantages.The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support defendant's FCPA conviction under 15 U.S.C. 78dd-2; defendant offers no basis to disturb his money laundering convictions where a violation of section 78dd-3 is sufficient to establish specified unlawful activity under the money laundering statute, and a wire that passes through the United States can be covered by 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(2)(A); defendant's evidentiary challenges are without merit; and the indictment properly charged defendant under different sections of the FCPA. View "United States v. Ho" on Justia Law

On October 06, 2020, Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order directing the New York State Department of Health to identify yellow, orange, and red "zones" based on the severity of COVID-19 outbreaks and imposing correspondingly severe restrictions on activity within each zone. Appellants, Agudath Israel and the Diocese, each challenged the executive order as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Appellants moved for injunctions pending appeal, which a divided motions panel of the Second Circuit denied. Appellants then sought injunctive relief from the Supreme Court, which granted writs of injunction prohibiting the Governor from enforcing the Order's 10- and 25-person capacity limits pending disposition of this appeal. The Supreme Court found that appellants were likely to succeed on the merits, applying strict scrutiny to the Order because it is not neutral on its face and imposes greater restrictions on religious activities than on other activities the Governor considers "essential."In light of the Supreme Court's decision, the Second Circuit held that the Order's regulation of "houses of worship" is subject to strict scrutiny and that its fixed capacity limits are not narrowly tailored to stem the spread of COVID-19. Therefore, appellants have established irreparable harm caused by the fixed capacity limits, and the public interest favors granting injunctive relief. As to the Diocese's appeal, the court reversed and remanded with directions for the district court to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Governor from enforcing the Order's 10- and 25-person capacity limits. As to Agudath Israel's appeal, the court reversed in part and remanded for the issuance of a preliminary injunction as to those fixed capacity limits. The court also vacated the district court's denial of Agudath Israel's motion for a preliminary injunction as to the Order's 25 and 33 percent capacity limits, and remanded or the district court to determine in the first instance whether those limits should be enjoined in light of the Supreme Court's decision and this opinion. View "Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was sexually abused by three correctional officers during her incarceration at a correctional facility, she filed suit against eight prison supervisory officials alleging, inter alia, that they violated the Eighth Amendment through their deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of her sexual abuse by the three correctional officers. The district court applied the supervisory liability test in Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir. 1995), and denied summary judgment and qualified immunity to Defendant Bachmann.The Second Circuit reversed, agreeing with Bachmann that the scope of supervisory liability for deliberate-indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment is not clearly established after Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), which called the supervisory-liability test into question. The court held that after Iqbal, there is no special test for supervisory liability. Rather, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution. The court also held that for deliberate-indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment against a prison supervisor, the plaintiff must plead and prove that the supervisor had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate and disregarded it. Finally, the court held that the pretrial record in this case does not support the inference that Bachmann had the required subjective knowledge that plaintiff was at a substantial risk of being sexually abused. The court remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Bachmann. View "Tangreti v. Bachmann" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Department on Stagg's challenge to the constitutionality of a speech licensing requirement imposed by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The district court concluded that the ITAR's licensing requirement unambiguously did not apply to the categories of speech that Stagg's complaint asserted an intention to undertake, and thus the question whether the provision would be unconstitutional in some applications is moot because none of those provisions applies to what Stagg alleges it intends to do.The court agreed that Stagg's intended conduct is not subject to the ITAR's licensing requirement. Furthermore, the court concluded that this finding rendered Stagg's constitutional challenges moot. In this case, as a result of the district court's and this court's rulings on the ambiguous inapplicability of the ITAR license requirement to Stagg's intended actions, Stagg has no personal stake in its suit and thus fails the test of Article III jurisdiction. Therefore, the court dismissed the district court's judgment and directed that the action be dismissed. View "Stagg, P.C. v. U.S. Department of State" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's judgment certifying a plaintiff class and enjoining state defendants from conducting Medicaid fair hearings in a manner that does not result in final determinations of Medicaid eligibility within 90 days of hearing requests. At issue is the phrase "final administrative action" in the context of a federal Medicaid regulation that requires a state agency to take such action within a specified time limit following a Medicaid applicant's request for a fair hearing. 42 C.F.R. 431.244(f).The Second Circuit held that the federal regulatory requirement of "final administrative action" within 90 days requires the state to determine Medicaid eligibility within that time. However, the court explained that such determinations may be made in hearing decisions or on remand to local agencies. Therefore, the regulation mandates that states meet the applicable deadline, but it does not limit states as to the administrative level at which that deadline is met. The court affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lisnitzer v. Zucker" on Justia Law

Everytown sought disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of certain data stored in the FTS database maintained by the ATF. The ATF denied Everytown's FOIA request on the grounds that appropriations riders known as the Tiahrt Riders exempt FTS data from FOIA disclosure, and properly responding to Everytown's FOIA request would require the ATF to create records. The district court granted summary judgment for Everytown.The Second Circuit reversed, holding that a prior statute cannot prevent a later-enacted statute from having effect. The court explained that if the plain import or fair implication of the 2012 Tiahrt Rider is to exempt FTS data from FOIA disclosure, the statute must be given effect even if it does not meet the requirements of the OPEN FOIA Act. In light of the statutory text and history, the court concluded that the 2012 Tiahrt Rider exempts FTS data from FOIA disclosure and that the exemption applies to the data Everytown seeks. Consequently, the court need not address whether Everytown's FOIA request required the ATF to create records. The court remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the ATF. View "Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a carman for Metro-North, filed suit under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, alleging unlawful retaliation for his refusal to walk outdoors to another building in the railyard in allegedly unsafe winter conditions or, in the alternative, for his reporting those unsafe conditions to a foreman.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Metro-North's motion for summary judgment, holding that the district court did not commit reversible error. The court adopted the "reasonableness" definition in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act context, which means that a "reasonable belief contains both subjective and objective components," and applied it in the FRSA context. The court agreed with Metro-North and the district court that plaintiff has not identified a genuine dispute of material fact over whether the walkways were safe or over the reasonableness of his own assessment. In this case, plaintiff did not submit any specific evidence to support his generalized contention that the walkways at the railyard were unsafe, other than to assert that other employees slipped as they walked. The court concluded that plaintiff's subjective assessment alone cannot create a genuine issue of material fact.The court agreed with the Seventh and Eighth Circuits and held that some evidence of retaliatory intent is a necessary component of an FRSA claim. The court considered the Eighth Circuit's Gunderson factors and concluded that plaintiff's protected activity was not a contributing factor in his discharge. Finally, the court considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. View "Tompkins v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The Union represented the workers at the Old Brookville campus. In 2016, LIU contracted out that work to A&A, which became the employer of those workers and assumed an existing collective bargaining agreement, set to expire in August 2017. A&A and the Union entered into a successor CBA, which requires Union membership after 30 days but allows A&A to hire “substitute employees” “to fill in for employees who are out on disability or worker’s compensation or approved extended leaves.” The Union rejected a provision that would have permitted A&A to use non-union “temporary employees” at will for up to 90 days. The agreement has an arbitration provision.Union members noticed new, non-union employees in late 2017. A&A indicated that they were "substitute employees." The Union determined that the number of claimed substitutes exceeded the number of members out on disability, worker’s compensation, and other approved leaves of absence and sent a written grievance. The Union framed the arbitration issue: whether A&A violated the CBA by utilizing temporary employees ... to perform bargaining unit work. A&A argued that the Arbitrator was confined to the issue proposed by the Union in its original grievance, which mentioned only “substitute employees.”The arbitrator held that A&A had violated the CBA and issued an award of $1,702,263.81. The Second Circuit affirmed. The arbitrator did not exceed his authority. While worded differently, the issue that the arbitrator ruled on was substantially identical to the issue in the grievance letter. A party that has previously agreed to arbitrate cannot frustrate the process by refusing to agree on the form of the issue. The arbitrator’s interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement was more than colorable. View "A&A Maintenance Enterprise, Inc. v. Ramnarain" on Justia Law