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

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) complaint for failure to state claims for which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs challenged the conduct of twelve banks and their affiliates in the FX market from January 2003 through 2014. On de novo review, the court held that plaintiffs failed to state plausible ERISA claims because the facts alleged do not show that defendants exercised the control over Plan assets necessary to establish ERISA functional fiduciary status. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of adjournment or leave to file a fourth amended complaint. View "Allen v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of possession of ammunition after having been dishonorably discharged from the military, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(6). The court held that defendant's conviction under section 922(g)(6) did not violate the Second Amendment because, even assuming without deciding that plaintiff can claim any Second Amendment protections, those protections did not preclude his conviction. The court held that those who, like defendant, have been found guilty of felony‐equivalent conduct by a military tribunal are not among those "law‐abiding and responsible" persons whose interests in possessing firearms are at the Amendment's core; although defendant's interests were outside the core protections of the Second Amendment, it was burdened substantially and intermediate scrutiny was applicable in his case; and section 922(g)(6) was substantially related to the government's interest of maintaining public safety. The court noted that there was no reason to think that defendant was more likely to handle a gun responsibly just because his conviction for dealing drugs and stolen military equipment (including firearms) occurred in a military tribunal rather than in state or federal court. View "United States v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the DOC in an action alleging that the DOC's policy of not accommodating the dietary restrictions imposed by plaintiff's Nazarite Jewish faith violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The court held that, in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015), the district court failed to appreciate the substantial showing that the government must make to justify burdening an individual plaintiff's practice of a sincerely held religious belief. In this case, fact questions remain as to whether the DOC's interest was compelling and its means were the least restrictive in light of plaintiff's suggested alternatives. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings and denied the DOC's motion to vacate the judgment and remand as moot. View "Williams v. Annucci" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Vessel on a competing maritime lien claim brought against it by ING and Chemoil under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA), 46 U.S.C. 31301. The claims arose from the provision of bunkers (marine fuel) to the Vessel. The district court also reduced the principal amount and interest rate posted by Cobelfret, the charterer of the Vessel, to secure the Vessel's release from arrest. The court held that, where, as here, security was posted and a vessel was released, Civ. P. Admiralty Supp R. E(5)(a) empowered the court to reduce security. In this case, the district court found that Cobelfret had shown good cause for reducing security. The court held that the district court committed no legal error in imposing an interest rate other than the 6% rate mentioned in Rule E(5), nor did the district court abuse its discretion in determining that there was "good cause shown" for reducing the interest rate to 3.5%. View "ING Bank N.V. v. M/V Maritime King" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for assault with a dangerous weapon and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court gave erroneous instructions to the jury on his defense of duress, because the instruction as given accurately reflected the law of the circuit; the evidence presented through the testimony of former MS-13 members as to the acts of violence in which defendant engaged as he was repeatedly seeking membership in MS-13's BLS clique, and which culminated in his leadership of BLS, dispelled any notion that defendant was involved in the shooting through no fault of his own; and, even if the instructions were erroneous, the error would afford no ground for relief. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court improperly found that defendant had committed attempted murder where the court declined defendant's invitation to rule that the district court's normal authority to make findings relevant to sentencing vanished because of a speculative possibility. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

The ACLU filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking documents concerning drone strikes. On appeal, defendants sought to vacate a ruling that a certain fact has been officially acknowledged and to leave redacted from the district court's public opinion the fact and related sentences. The Second Circuit vacated the ruling of official acknowledgement and remanded with direction to leave redacted the district court's public opinion of all redactions currently made in that opinion. View "American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of misdemeanor computer intrusion in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C), a provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA). The court held that defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of section 1030(a)(2)(C) failed because the statute was not unconstitutionally vague and, even if the statute's application may be unclear in some marginal cases, defendant's conduct fell squarely and unambiguously within the core prohibition of the statute. The court also held that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to search warrants issued under the Stored Communications Act and obtained during searches of defendant's home in Italy. Finally, the court rejected defendant's challenge to the authentication of screenshots of websites registered to defendant for use in the click fraud scheme, which were captured and stored by the Internet Archive, and maintained as business records of that entity. View "United States v. Gasperini" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit granted consolidated petitions for review of a final rule published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indefinitely delaying a previously published rule increasing civil penalties for noncompliance with Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. The court held that the agency lacked statutory authority to indefinitely delay the effective date of the rule. Furthermore, the agency, in promulgating the rule, failed to comply with the requirements of notice and comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, the court vacated the rule. View "Natural Resources Defense Council v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit reversed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for plaintiff on her claim that Time Warner knowingly or willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. 227, by using an "automatic telephone dialing system" to call her cell phone 153 times without her consent. The court held that the district court's analysis was based on an incorrect interpretation of the statutory text where the district court relied primarily on a Declaratory Ruling and Order issued by the FCC in 2015 that has since been invalidated by the D.C. Circuit. When the court considered the statute independently, without an administrative interpretation to defer to, the best interpretation of the statutory language was the one suggested by the D.C. Circuit's discussion in ACA Int'l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687, 699 (D.C. Cir. 2018): in the TCPA's definition of an autodialer, a device's "capacity" referred to its current functions absent additional modifications, regardless of whether those functions were in use during the offending call. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to develop the factual record and to apply the appropriate standard. View "King v. Time Warner Cable Inc." on Justia Law

In 1999, Villanueva was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The indictment alleged two prior convictions for narcotics violations, a third for first-degree assault, Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a‐59(a), and a fourth for assault on an officer. After a jury found Villanueva guilty, a presentence report recommended sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e) minimum 15-year sentence provision. The report reflected that the first-degree assault conviction resulted from Villanueva’s firing a gun three or four times and hitting his victim in the shoulder and calculated a Guidelines range of 262‐327 months. The court concluded that each of the narcotics convictions was a “serious drug offense” and at least one of the assault convictions was a “violent felony” under ACCA without specifying whether the elements clause or the residual clause of ACCA applied. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the “residual clause” of the ACCA was unconstitutionally vague. In 2016, the district court vacated Villanueva’s sentence and sentenced him to time served. The Second Circuit disagreed and remanded, finding that the Connecticut statute, analyzed under the so‐called “modified categorical approach,” has as an element, the use of “physical force” as federal law uses in defining “violent felony.” View "Villanueva v. United States" on Justia Law