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

Plaintiff SeanPaul Reyes, who frequently posts videos of his interactions with police on YouTube, challenged a New York City Police Department (NYPD) policy that prohibits video recording inside police facilities. Reyes, who had been arrested twice for recording inside police stationhouses, argued that the policy violated his rights under the First Amendment and the New York State and New York City Right to Record Acts (RTRAs). He sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the City from enforcing the policy and to remove signs stating the policy.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Reyes a preliminary injunction based on his state and local law claims, despite finding that he was unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment claim. The court concluded that Reyes demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his RTRAs claims, irreparable harm, and that the public interest favored an injunction.The City of New York appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state and local claims and in finding that Reyes met the requirements for a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction or its determination of irreparable harm. However, the court noted that the resolution of whether Reyes is likely to succeed on the merits and whether the public interest favors an injunction depends on the interpretation of the RTRAs.Given the lack of clear guidance from New York courts on whether the RTRAs afford a right to record inside police stationhouses, the Second Circuit certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Does either N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p or N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 14-189 afford individuals the right to video record law enforcement activities inside public facilities, specifically inside the publicly accessible lobbies of police stationhouses, notwithstanding the NYPD policy forbidding such recording? The decision on the appeal is reserved pending the response from the New York Court of Appeals. View "Reyes v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Dr. Sari Edelman, a female rheumatologist, was employed by the New York University (NYU) hospital system. After nearly five years of employment without disciplinary issues, she had disputes with Joseph Antonik and David Kaplan regarding her office space. Edelman claimed that Antonik used a gender-based slur and behaved aggressively, and that Kaplan's subsequent handling of the issue was discriminatory. She lodged complaints with NYU human resources, alleging gender discrimination and hostile behavior. Her employment contract was not renewed the following year, leading to her termination.Edelman sued various NYU entities and individual employees, asserting claims under the federal and New York Equal Pay Acts, Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in favor of some defendants and dismissed certain claims. The jury found in favor of Edelman on her retaliation claims against NYU and Antonik, awarding her $700,000 in damages, but found for the defendants on all other claims. The District Court later granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for the defendants, vacating the jury's verdict in favor of Edelman.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts in Edelman's favor on her retaliation claims against NYU and Antonik. The court vacated the District Court's grant of JNOV for these claims and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury's verdict. The court also vacated the District Court's decision granting JMOL in favor of Kaplan on the retaliation claim and remanded for a new trial on that claim. The judgment on the remaining claims was affirmed. View "Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System" on Justia Law

In 2017, Gladys Eudosia Toalombo Yanez, a native and citizen of Ecuador, was placed in removal proceedings for entering the United States without inspection. She conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that her deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to her U.S. citizen children. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her application, finding that she did not meet the burden of proving the required level of hardship. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the evidence did not demonstrate the necessary hardship.Toalombo Yanez appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the BIA's hardship determination was not supported by the evidence and that the BIA retroactively applied a new legal standard to her case. Initially, the government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over these issues. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Wilkinson v. Garland, the government conceded that the court had jurisdiction to review the agency's hardship determination and the retroactivity claim.The Second Circuit held that the appropriate standard of review for the hardship determination is clear error. Upon review, the court found that the agency did not err in concluding that Toalombo Yanez failed to demonstrate the required hardship for cancellation of removal. The court also reviewed the retroactivity claim de novo and concluded that the BIA did not impermissibly retroactively apply any new rules. Therefore, the Second Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Yanez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

William Hines was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York for receipt and possession of child pornography found on his cellphone and laptop. Hines had pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his cellphone. Hines argued that his girlfriend, K.S., acted as an agent of the police when she used his password to unlock his cellphone, observed child pornography, and showed the images to a police officer, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights.The district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that K.S. acted independently and not as a government agent when she unlocked the phone and showed the images to the police officer. The court concluded that the private search did not implicate the Fourth Amendment and denied the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the subsequent search warrant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the burden lies with the defendant to show that a private search constituted governmental action implicating the Fourth Amendment. The court found no error in the district court's determination that Hines failed to meet this burden. The court concluded that K.S. acted independently and not as a government agent, and thus, the private search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the evidence obtained from the search warrant was admissible. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hines" on Justia Law

Nakul Karkare, a surgeon affiliated with AA Medical, P.C., brought an action against the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers Local 580 (the Union) to recover unpaid benefits under section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Karkare, holding a power of attorney for Patient JN, claimed the Union failed to fully reimburse AA Medical for surgical services provided to Patient JN, a beneficiary under the Union’s self-funded insurance plan. The Union reimbursed only $1,095.92 of the $153,579.94 billed by AA Medical.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the complaint sua sponte, concluding that a power of attorney did not permit Karkare to maintain an ERISA cause of action on behalf of Patient JN, as it was distinct from an assignment of claim. Karkare did not provide proof of a valid assignment but argued that the power of attorney was sufficient. The district court disagreed and dismissed the complaint, later denying Karkare’s motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Karkare lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring the action. The court determined that Karkare was suing in his own name and not on behalf of Patient JN, despite holding a power of attorney. The court held that a power of attorney does not confer Article III standing to file suit in the attorney-in-fact’s own name. However, the court remanded the case to the district court to consider whether Patient JN should be permitted to be substituted into the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Karkare v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing" on Justia Law

A man was accused in Ecuador of repeatedly sexually abusing his partner’s ten-year-old daughter over the course of a year, beginning in August 2016. The alleged abuse included digital penetration and other sexual acts, accompanied by threats to the victim and her family. After the allegations surfaced, the man fled to the United States in 2018. Ecuador requested his extradition, and U.S. authorities arrested him in July 2024. The extradition request was based on charges of sexual abuse under Ecuadorian law, which does not require penetration, unlike the offense of rape.A magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York held an extradition hearing, excluded the defendant’s proposed expert testimony about Ecuadorian evidentiary law, and certified his extradition, finding probable cause that he committed acts constituting rape as defined in the extradition treaty. The defendant then filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court, arguing that sexual abuse was not an extraditable offense, that the magistrate judge erred in excluding his expert, and that humanitarian concerns should preclude extradition. The district court denied the petition, rejecting all arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that extradition is permissible when the underlying conduct matches an offense listed in the relevant treaty, regardless of the specific charge’s name in the requesting country. The court found probable cause that the defendant’s conduct constituted rape, an extraditable offense. It also held that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding the expert testimony and reaffirmed that humanitarian concerns are for the Executive Branch, not the courts, to consider. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Lalama Gomez v. United States" on Justia Law

Selim Zherka, a convicted felon, challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. Zherka argued that because his felony was nonviolent, Congress could not deprive him of his Second Amendment right to bear arms. He also claimed a due process right to an individualized assessment of dangerousness before being deprived of this right. Zherka sought a declaration that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him and an injunction preventing the government from enforcing it against him.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Zherka’s claims. The court held that § 922(g)(1) was constitutional as applied to him and that he had no right to a hearing before the application of a categorical prohibition. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s assurance in District of Columbia v. Heller that longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons are presumptively lawful. The court also rejected Zherka’s due process claim, citing Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, which held that procedural due process does not require a hearing to prove or disprove facts irrelevant under the challenged statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from disarming convicted felons, including those convicted of nonviolent felonies. The court found that there is a historical tradition of legislative disarmament of classes of people perceived as dangerous, which supports the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). The court also concluded that Zherka had no procedural due process right to an individualized assessment of dangerousness before being disarmed under the statute. View "Zherka v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant met a sixteen-year-old runaway in the Bronx and, along with two associates, lured her to their apartment. There, they gave her drug-laced alcohol, sexually assaulted her, and began prostituting her over a period of three weeks. The group took explicit photos, posted online advertisements, arranged clients, and used violence and threats to control the victim. Although the victim initially claimed to be eighteen, the defendant and his associates became suspicious of her age and eventually learned she was sixteen, but continued the operation. The defendant left the group after being injured in a shooting, but remained in contact with his co-conspirators. The victim was eventually rescued by law enforcement, and the defendant was arrested after several months as a fugitive.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over the trial. The government charged the defendant with sex trafficking conspiracy, sex trafficking a minor, and conspiracy to use interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted on all counts. The defendant moved for acquittal on the sex trafficking count, arguing that the government failed to prove he knew the victim was underage, and objected to the jury instructions, claiming the relevant statutory language was unconstitutionally vague.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c), which allows conviction for sex trafficking a minor if the defendant had a “reasonable opportunity to observe” the victim, is not unconstitutionally vague. The court also found no error in the district court’s use of a general verdict form rather than a special verdict form. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Concepcion" on Justia Law

Mary Doe, a social worker proceeding under a pseudonym, challenged New York’s Reproductive Health Act (RHA), arguing it violated constitutional rights. Doe sought to represent a class of viable fetuses, claiming the RHA’s decriminalization of abortion and elimination of fetal homicide laws harmed them. She also sought to amend her complaint post-judgment to include a specific fetus, "Baby Nicholas," alleging he faced harm due to the RHA.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Doe’s claims for lack of standing, denying her motion to be appointed as "next friend" to the fetuses, citing her lack of a significant relationship with them. The court also denied her post-judgment motion to amend the complaint, finding it futile as Baby Nicholas lacked standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that the district court erred in requiring a significant relationship for next friend appointments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). However, it affirmed the dismissal of Doe’s claims on the grounds that she failed to identify or describe any specific member of the viable fetus class, thus failing to establish a live case or controversy under Article III.Regarding the post-judgment motion, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial, concluding that Baby Nicholas lacked standing. The court found that the alleged risks to Baby Nicholas were not imminent and traceable to the RHA, as required for standing. The potential harm from a third party was not sufficiently connected to the RHA’s provisions.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, maintaining the dismissal of Doe’s claims and denying the motion to amend the complaint. View "Doe v. Hochul" on Justia Law

Dharwinder Singh, a citizen of India, petitioned for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh claimed he faced persecution in India due to his political opinion and provided testimony about attacks he suffered in 2013. However, his statements during a border interview in the United States contradicted his hearing testimony, leading to an adverse credibility determination by the IJ.The IJ found Singh not credible because his hearing testimony about being attacked in August and November 2013 conflicted with his statement to a border patrol agent that he left India in April 2013. Singh explained that he lied during the border interview on the advice of his smuggler. The IJ did not find this explanation convincing and determined that Singh's willingness to lie undermined his credibility. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the REAL ID Act's totality-of-the-circumstances standard applied, rather than the Ramsameachire factors previously used to evaluate the reliability of border interviews.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court agreed that the REAL ID Act displaced the Ramsameachire factors and established a presumption that border interviews are proper to consider in adverse credibility determinations. The court found that the IJ and BIA properly assessed the reliability of Singh's border interview under the totality of the circumstances and that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination. Consequently, the court denied Singh's petition for review. View "Singh v. Bondi" on Justia Law