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

Plaintiff filed for Social Security benefits, but her application was denied by the Social Security Commissioner. The Appeals Council denied review, which made the Commissioner’s decision final. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the district court, which denied her motion and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff appealed that judgment.   The Second Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part. The court held the district court failed to properly assess Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) with regard to her ability to work consistently as well as her limitations regarding social interactions, and that substantial evidence accordingly does not support the determination that Plaintiff’s psychological impairments do not render her disabled. By contrast, the court held that substantial evidence does support the determination that Plaintiff’s physical impairments do not render her disabled. View "Rucker v. Kijakazi" on Justia Law

This dispute arises out of the efforts of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to designate a new waste disposal site on Long Island Sound for byproducts of local dredging activities. New York State and the Town of Southold, New York (“Southold,” and together with New York, the “Plaintiffs”) challenged the EPA’s designation of the site pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), alleging a violation of the Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”). They appealed a district court’s judgment granting Defendants EPA and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s cross-motions for summary judgment.   The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that contrary to Plaintiffs’ claim, the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review applies and that under that standard, the EPA’s designation of the new disposal site passes muster under the CZMA. The court also held that Southold’s claim under the National Environmental Protection Act is not properly before the court. The court explained that New York failed to show that the EPA’s decision to impose additional restrictions on the Eastern Site undermines the agency’s efforts to achieve full consistency with the New York Program. Further, the court concluded that the EPA’s determination that its activity is fully consistent with the Southold Program is not arbitrary and capricious and that Southold’s NEPA claim is waived. View "Town of Southold, et al. v. Wheeler, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 2252A(a)(2)(B), (b)(1), and 2, and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2), and 2.  The district court applied sentencing enhancements under 18 U.S.C. Section 2252A(b)(1) and (b)(2), which increase the mandatory minimum sentence if the defendant has a prior conviction “under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward. Defendant was previously convicted in New York for attempted sodomy in the first degree against an eight-year-old victim.   Defendant argues that the federal sentencing enhancements are inapplicable because the New York law does not qualify as a predicate offense under the modified categorical approach. Defendant further argues that the sentencing enhancements, as interpreted by the district court, are unconstitutionally vague.   The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that Defendant’s prior conviction categorically “relates to” the sexual abuse of a minor, and we conclude that the sentencing enhancements in 18 U.S.C. Section 2252A(b)(1) and (b)(2) are not unconstitutionally vague. Further, the court explained that even if Defendant’s vagueness challenge were not subject to such a high standard of review, however, it would still fail on the merits. An ordinary person could certainly understand that engaging in sexual conduct “consisting of contact between the penis and the anus, the mouth and the penis, or the mouth and the vulva” with a child under the age of eleven "relates to" the sexual abuse of a minor. View "United States v. Ragonese" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the narcotics conspiracy count on the grounds that the classification of marijuana under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act violates their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. They argued that marijuana's scheduling has no rational basis because it does not meet the statutory criteria for inclusion on Schedule I. The district court denied their motion to dismiss, concluding that they incorrectly sought to tether the rational basis inquiry to the statutory criteria   The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that the Act's scheduling criteria are largely irrelevant to our constitutional review because the rational basis test asks only whether Congress could have any conceivable basis for including marijuana on the strictest schedule. Because there are other plausible considerations that could have motivated Congress's scheduling of marijuana, the court concluded that its classification does not violate Defendants’ due process or equal protection rights. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

Defendant contends primarily that the district court erred in denying his motion pursuant to Section 3582 by refusing to consider new evidence that he says calls into question the validity of his conviction.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that when considering a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court does not have discretion to consider new evidence proffered for the purpose of attacking the validity of the underlying conviction in its balancing of the 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) factors. Facts and arguments that purport to undermine the validity of a federal conviction must be brought on direct appeal or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 or Section 2241. Here, because the district court properly refused to consider such evidence here as to the Sections 3553(a) factors and otherwise did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for compassionate release, the court affirmed. View "United States v. Orena" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs suing individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, appealed from an August 2020 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on the ground of forum non conveniens, their amended complaint against defendants E‐Commerce China Dangdang Inc. (ʺDangdangʺ), its controlling shareholders, and others, alleging negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Sections 10(b), 13(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (ʺExchange Actʺ) and rules promulgated thereunder, in connection with Dangdangʹs 2016 ʺgoing‐privateʺ merger and the purchase by its controlling shareholders of its outstanding publicly‐traded shares, listed as American Depositary Shares (or ʺADSsʺ) on the New York Stock Exchange (or ʺNYSEʺ).On appeal, plaintiffs argue principally that the district court erred in concluding that the forum selection clause was not applicable to all of the defendants and to all of plaintiffsʹ claims, and in according unwarranted weight to public‐interest factors pointing toward dismissal.The Second Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s judgment concluding that the forum selection clause was not applicable to all of defendants and to all of plaintiffsʹ claims. The court held the district court principally misinterpreted the scope of the forum selection clause. View "Fasano v. Guoqing Li" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are members of the Shinnecock Indian Nation and assert an ancestral right to fish in the Shinnecock Bay without interference. Over the past decade, state officials ticketed and prosecuted Plaintiffs for violating state fishing laws. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the further enforcement of the regulations as well as damages based on allegations of discrimination in past enforcement. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants.The Second Circuit found that Ex Parte Young applies to Plaintiffs’ fishing-rights claims against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) officials— but not against the DEC itself—because Plaintiffs allege an ongoing violation of federal law and seek prospective relief against state officials. Thus, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the DEC officials on Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. However, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims because there is no evidence in the record that would permit an inference of discriminatory intent. View "Silva v. Farrish" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned the United States Tax Court to redetermine her income tax deficiency after the Commissioner of Internal Revenue concluded that she was subject to a 10-percent exaction under 26 U.S.C. Section 72(t) of the Internal Revenue Code for early distributions she made from her pension plan. Petitioner argued that she is not liable for the 10-percent exaction under Section 72(t) because it is a penalty, an additional amount, or an addition to tax within the meaning of Section 6751(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and that the Commissioner failed to obtain written supervisory approval for the initial determination to impose the exaction, as required by Section 6751(b). The United States Tax Court ruled that the 10-percent exaction under Section 72(t) is not subject to the written supervisory requirement because it is a tax, not a penalty, an additional amount, or an addition to tax, and Petitioner is liable for the 10-percent exaction.   The Second Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s judgment. The court explained that the plain and unambiguous language of Section 72(t) establishes that the Exaction is a tax, not a penalty, an additional amount, or an addition to tax within the meaning of Section 6751(c) that requires written supervisory approval. Thus, Petitioner is liable for the Exaction. View "Grajales v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud and ordered to pay restitution. The district court granted the Government’s application for writs of garnishment seeking access to Defendant’s 401(k) retirement accounts. Defendant appealed. 
 The Second Circuit vacated and remanded. The court held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) authorizes garnishment of Defendant’s 401(k) retirement funds. The court remanded to the district court, however, to determine whether the ten-percent early withdrawal tax will be imposed upon garnishment, limiting the Government’s access to Defendant’s retirement funds. The court also held that the Consumer Credit Protection Act’s 25-percent cap on garnishments does not apply to limit the Government’s garnishment. View "United States v. Greebel" on Justia Law

Art dealer Inigo Philbrick sold V&A Collection, LLC an ownership interest in artwork by Wade Guyton (the “Guyton”). In a second transaction, made without V&A’s knowledge or participation, Guzzini Properties Ltd. purchased the Guyton, an artwork by Rudolf Stingel (the “Stingel”), and a third painting. Guzzini removed the second action to federal court and then moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. V&A argued that by suing to quiet title to the Stingel in New York state court, Guzzini consented to submit to the jurisdiction of New York courts for all claims arising out of the same agreement.  The district court found that because the two lawsuits did not arise out of the same transaction, Guzzini did not implicitly consent to litigate the dispute over the Guyton in New York.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the two key elements of conversion are (1) plaintiff’s possessory right or interest in the property and (2) defendant’s dominion over the property or interference with it, in derogation of plaintiff’s rights. Here, the court explained that V&A’s conversion claim is premised on its assertion that it has “a possessory right to and at least a 50% ownership interest in the Guyton”. These assertions, if satisfactorily established, could allow V&A to prevail on its conversion claim regardless of the outcome of the state court action. Even if the state court declares the June 2017 Agreement void, that would not settle the question of whether V&A had a “possessory right or interest in the property.” Thus, to bring its claim, V&A must find a court able to exercise jurisdiction over Guzzini. View "V&A Collection, LLC v. Guzzini Properties Ltd" on Justia Law