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

Plaintiffs are individuals who own apartment buildings in New York City that are subject to the relevant Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing their complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order rejecting Plaintiffs' contention that the New York Rent Stabilization Law was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied. The court held that Plaintiffs did not establish that application of the RSL resulted in a physical taking. The court also held that the RSL did not "go to far" in determining how private landowners can use their property. The court went on to reject Plaintiff's as-applied challenges to the RSL. View "74 Pinehurst LLC v. State of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individuals who own apartment buildings in New York City subject to the relevant Rent Stabilization Law (RSL), appealed from a district court judgment. The court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs alleged that the RSL, as amended in 2019, effected, facially, an unconstitutional physical and regulatory taking. The District Court held that Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to state claims for violations of the Takings Clause.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that Here, the RSL is part of a comprehensive regulatory regime that governs nearly one million units. Like the broad public interests at issue in Penn Central, here, the legislature has determined that the RSL is necessary to prevent “serious threats to the public health, safety and general welfare.” Further, the Landlords urged the Court to consider two additional, less commonly cited Penn Central factors that, they argued, tend to show that the RSL results in a regulatory taking: noxious use and a lack of a reciprocal advantage. Even assuming for the sake of argument that these factors apply, the claims fail. View "Community Housing Improvement Program v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of extortion for threatening to disseminate nude photographs of Jane Doe if she did not return to a relationship with him. Defendant appealed, arguing that the plea proceedings were defective because the district court did not explain the “wrongfulness” element of extortion under United States v. Jackson. He also challenged two special conditions of supervised release on First Amendment grounds: (1) a requirement that Defendant seek retraction of articles he published about Jane Doe and her brother-in-law, John Doe, and (2) a requirement that he seek approval from the district court before publishing any further information about them.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the plea proceedings were not defective because the district court correctly determined that Defendant understood the “nature of each charge” to which he pled. Second, the special condition that Defendant seeks retraction of articles he published about Jane Doe and John Doe has expired, so Defendant’s challenge to that condition is moot. Finally, the special condition that Defendant seeks approval from the district court before publishing further information about Jane Doe and John Doe does not violate the First Amendment under the circumstances here. Defendant pled guilty to extortion by threatening to publish nude images of Jane Doe, and he is a journalist who had published or threatened to publish information about her and John Doe in the past. So the district court acted within its broad discretion by imposing the narrowly tailored special condition requiring Defendant to obtain approval from the court before publishing any further information about them. View "United States v. Farooq" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged in district court with five counts of an eight-count indictment in connection with two killings. Counts Four, Five, and Six charged Defendant with conspiring to commit, and committing, murder for hire. Counts Seven and Eight charged Defendant with the use of a firearm to commit murder. Defendant was convicted on all five counts and received a sentence of five concurrent life terms, one for each count. In response to intervening Supreme Court precedent, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 asserting that his two Section 924(j) convictions on Counts Seven and Eight should be vacated. The district court agreed and granted the motion. The court declined, however, to resentence Defendant de novo. Defendant argued that this was an error, either because de novo resentencing was mandatory, or because the district court abused its discretion in declining to resentence Defendant de novo.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Section 2255's statutory text vests district courts with the discretion to decide when to conduct a de novo resentencing and that de novo resentencing was not mandatory here. The court also concluded that because resentencing Defendant would have been “strictly ministerial,” resulting in the same sentence of mandatory life imprisonment that he received in the first instance, the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "United States v. Peña" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought a review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) finding him removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The IJ and BIA concluded that Petitioner is removable because his prior conviction for sexual abuse in the second degree under N.Y. Penal Law Section 130.60(2) 2 is both (1) “sexual abuse of a minor,” which is an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); and (2) “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).   The Second Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition in part and denied it in part. The court reasoned that a conviction under N.Y. Penal Law Section 130.60(2) constitutes “sexual abuse of a minor.” Further, the court wrote that “sexual abuse of a minor” is defined as an “aggravated felony” under the INA, and the court lacks jurisdiction to review a final order of removal against an alien who committed an “aggravated felony.” The court, therefore, dismissed Petitioner’s petition in part. Second, Petitioner has abandoned any arguments as to whether N.Y. Penal Law Section 130.60(2) constitutes a “crime of child abuse,” so the court declined to reach the issue and denied this aspect of the petition. View "Debique v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Seneca Nation brought a lawsuit seeking relief from New York State, the New York Thruway Authority, and the Thruway Authority’s Executive Director (collectively “Defendants”) for ongoing use of an invalid easement over its tribal land. Defendants appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss. Defendants contend that the Nation is collaterally estopped from bringing this present action based on a 2004 judgment of this court and that this lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Seneca Nation does not assert property rights over land to which New York State has traditionally held the title and does not seek a declaration that the State’s laws and regulations do not apply to the area in dispute. Therefore, the quiet title exception to Ex parte Young outlined by the Court in Coeur d’Alene Tribe has no application here. Accordingly, the lawsuit falls under the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment. Thus, neither collateral estoppel nor the Eleventh Amendment bars the Nation from proceeding in this case. View "Seneca Nation v. Hochul" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s judgment sentencing him to 36 months in prison following his conviction by a jury of witness retaliation. Defendant challenged the manner in which the district court conducted jury selection, arguing primarily that the district court neglected to adequately screen prospective jurors for bias against gang members and that the voir dire process was too abbreviated to allow for informed peremptory and for-cause challenges.   The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial. The court explained that, under these circumstances, the district court exceeded its discretion by failing to sufficiently account for the risk of gang-related bias among prospective jurors. The court explained that the district court’s failure on voir dire to explore or to take other steps specifically to counter such potential prejudice unfairly deprived Defendant of the opportunity to unearth a pervasive bias relevant to an issue pivotal to the government’s case against him. Accordingly, the court held that the district court abused its discretion. View "United States of America v. Nieves" on Justia Law

Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project (“ACLU”) brought a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) suit in district court to compel Defendant, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), to produce agency records in the form of electronic spreadsheet data pertaining to five stages of the immigration enforcement and deportation process. ICE produced 21 spreadsheets of responsive data but did not comply with ACLU’s request to replace exempt Alien Identification Numbers (“A-Numbers”) on such spreadsheets with anonymized unique identifiers (“Unique IDs”). ACLU submits that such Unique IDs could be any combinations of numbers, letters, or symbols that, while meaningless in themselves, would allow ACLU to track datapoints pertaining to individual (but unidentified) aliens across ICE databases. The district court granted ICE’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that ACLU’s requested substitution effectively required ICE to create new records.   The Second Circuit reversed the award of summary judgment to ICE and remanded. The court reasoned that by redacting A-Numbers from the spreadsheets, it produced conveying datapoints by event rather than by person, ICE not only shielded the FOIA-exempt personal identifying information (“PII”) documented by the A-Numbers but also effectively deprived the public of access to nonexempt records in the same person-centric manner available to the agency. The court explained that the substitution of Unique IDs for A-Numbers does not create any new agency records and is a reasonable step to shield the exempt content of A-Numbers while preserving the function necessary to afford public access to non-exempt records in the same person-centric form or format available to the agency. View "ACLU Immigrants' Rts. Project v. ICE" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed various issues arising from his 2017 amended judgment of conviction for Hobbs Act robbery and firearm offenses in district court. The Second Circuit addressed two of Defendant’s arguments—first that the order of forfeiture entered against him should be vacated because the district court failed to enter a preliminary order prior to sentencing, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B); second, that he was improperly convicted of possessing firearms as a felon, Counts Twelve through Fourteen because the government did not prove that he knew that he was a felon.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that Defendant asserted that forfeiture is unlike restitution, which was at issue in Dolan because restitution is intended to assist the victims of crimes. Forfeiture and restitution indeed serve different purposes: restitution is for “remediating a loss,” while forfeiture is for “disgorging a gain.” But that distinction is less material here. Forfeiture also serves other important purposes, and the court saw no reason why, for purposes of timing, restitution and forfeiture should be treated differently under these circumstances. Defendant also argued that the government alone is responsible for preserving the value of seized assets, but for support, he cites only an inapposite customs statute. However, the court found that Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice sufficient to void the forfeiture order. View "United States v. McIntosh" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s judgment of conviction following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 kilograms (kg) of marijuana. During a reverse-sting operation, Defendant took possession of 10 kg of real and “sham” cocaine from an undercover agent and agreed to take possession of 40 kg more. After his arrest, Defendant told law enforcement that he thought he was picking up marijuana or money, not cocaine. Defendant later entered a plea agreement, in which he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute marijuana. At sentencing, the government raised and the district court considered the 50 kg of cocaine as part of Defendant’s “relevant conduct” under Sentencing Guideline Section 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Defendant to 36 months imprisonment.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court concluded that (1) the plea agreement permitted the government to raise that quantity of cocaine at sentencing, (2) the government was not judicially estopped from doing so, and (3) the district court did not err by considering the 50 kg of cocaine as part of Defendant’s “relevant conduct” because Guideline Section 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) does not require scienter as to drug type when a defendant is directly and personally involved in a drug transaction. View "United States v. Helm" on Justia Law