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

The plaintiff was stopped by New York State Troopers in Oneida County, New York, on September 4, 2017, after a report of erratic driving. During the stop, Trooper Colton claimed the plaintiff failed field sobriety tests and later registered a high blood alcohol content on a breathalyzer. The plaintiff disputed these findings, alleging the tests were improperly administered and that he passed them. He was arrested and charged with a felony for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, multiple DWI-related misdemeanors, and a traffic infraction. The felony charge was later amended to a misdemeanor before a suppression hearing, after which the city court suppressed evidence due to concerns about Trooper Colton’s credibility. The plaintiff ultimately pled guilty to the traffic infraction, and the remaining DWI-related charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the plaintiff’s federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, and fabrication of evidence. The district court found that the guilty plea to the traffic infraction established probable cause for the arrest, defeating the false arrest claim. It also held that the plaintiff could not show favorable termination for the malicious prosecution claim because the DWI-related charges were dismissed as part of a plea agreement. The fabrication of evidence claim was dismissed as conclusory and contradicted by Trooper Colton’s testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the false arrest claim and the malicious prosecution claim as to the DWI-related charges dismissed in the plea agreement, holding that a guilty plea to one charge bars a malicious prosecution claim for other charges dismissed as part of the same plea. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim as to the terminated felony charge, finding it plausibly terminated favorably because its dismissal was not clearly part of the plea. The court also reinstated the fabrication of evidence claim, concluding the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged intentional fabrication. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these claims. View "Carruthers v. Colton" on Justia Law

The State of Vermont brought a lawsuit in state court against 3M Company, alleging that 3M’s production of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals,” had contaminated Vermont’s natural resources, including water, wildlife, soil, and sediment. The case focused on contamination at the Rutland City landfill and a former 3M manufacturing facility in Rutland, Vermont. In 2023, Vermont’s Department of Environmental Conservation sent 3M a letter identifying it as a potentially responsible party for PFAS contamination, and Vermont’s counsel later forwarded this letter to 3M’s counsel in the context of the ongoing litigation.After receiving the letter, 3M conducted an internal investigation and determined that, during its ownership of the Rutland facility, it had manufactured copper-clad laminates in accordance with military specifications that required the use of PFAS. On January 3, 2024, 3M removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), asserting a federal defense based on its compliance with military requirements. The United States District Court for the District of Vermont found that 3M’s removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), reasoning that the thirty-day removal period began when 3M received Vermont’s email with the DEC letter, and remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s remand order de novo. The Second Circuit held that Vermont’s correspondence did not provide sufficient information for 3M to ascertain that the case was removable under the federal officer removal statute, and thus the thirty-day removal period had not begun when 3M received the email. The court vacated the District Court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vermont v. 3M Co." on Justia Law

A New York resident, known as Lucha El, was twice arrested for unlawful possession of firearms. In both instances, the firearms had been purchased in South Carolina by another individual, Keith Vereen, who acted as a straw purchaser. Lucha El paid Vereen, who then transported the firearms to New York, where Lucha El received them. Lucha El did not have the necessary permits to purchase firearms in New York and did not attempt to obtain a federal license to transport firearms across state lines.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charged Lucha El with interstate transport of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3) and conspiracy to transport or receive firearms from outside his state of residency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Lucha El moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that § 922(a)(3) violated the Second Amendment, but the district court denied the motion. After a trial, a jury found him guilty on both counts, and he was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, and forfeiture of the firearms. Lucha El appealed, raising only the Second Amendment challenge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that § 922(a)(3) is a lawful regulation on the commercial sale of firearms that does not meaningfully constrain the right to keep and bear arms. The court further found that, even if the statute did impose a meaningful constraint, it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Lucha El’s convictions under § 922(a)(3) did not violate the Second Amendment. View "United States v. Perez" on Justia Law

Ferdinand E. Marcos, former President of the Philippines, deposited approximately $2 million in a New York Merrill Lynch account in 1972, which grew to over $40 million. These funds, known as the Arelma Assets, were proceeds of Marcos’s criminal activities. After Marcos’s ouster, multiple parties—including the Republic of the Philippines, a class of nearly 10,000 human rights victims, and the estate of Roger Roxas (from whom Marcos had stolen treasure)—asserted competing claims to these assets. The Republic obtained a forfeiture judgment from a Philippine court and requested the U.S. Attorney General to enforce it under 28 U.S.C. § 2467.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the enforcement application. The court rejected the class’s affirmative defenses, which included arguments based on statute of limitations, subject matter jurisdiction, lack of notice, and fraud. The court also found that Roxas lacked Article III standing because she failed to show a sufficient interest in the Arelma Assets, and denied her leave to amend her answer. The court entered judgment for the Government, allowing the assets to be returned to the Republic of the Philippines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the class failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of its affirmative defenses and that Roxas lacked standing to participate as a respondent. The court also upheld the denial of intervention by Golden Budha Corporation, finding its interests adequately represented and lacking standing. The main holding is that the Government’s application to enforce the Philippine forfeiture judgment was timely and proper, and that neither the class nor Roxas could block enforcement or claim the assets. View "In re: Enforcement of Philippine Forfeiture Judgment" on Justia Law

Four former employees of grocery store chains, who participated in a defined contribution 401(k) retirement plan, brought a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). They alleged that the plan’s fiduciaries mismanaged the plan by failing to prudently select and monitor investment options, failing to act solely in the interest of plan participants, and allowing excessive fees and improper compensation arrangements. The plaintiffs sought monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves, the plan, and a proposed class of similarly situated participants.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed several of the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of Article III standing, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged any concrete injury to their individual accounts from the alleged mismanagement of certain investment options or from the plan’s compensation arrangements. The district court concluded that because the plaintiffs had not invested in the specific funds they challenged, or had not shown that the alleged breaches affected their own accounts, they lacked standing to pursue those claims. The court did find standing for some claims related to funds in which the plaintiffs had invested, but ultimately dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims for lack of standing. The Second Circuit held that participants in a defined contribution plan must plausibly allege a concrete, individualized financial injury to establish Article III standing for monetary relief under ERISA. Because the plaintiffs did not allege that they suffered losses in their own accounts from the challenged conduct, they lacked both individual and class standing for those claims. The court affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s judgment, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Collins v. Ne. Grocery, LLC" on Justia Law

Two New York residents applied for concealed carry firearm licenses under the state’s licensing laws. Their applications were reviewed by a county court judge acting as a statutory licensing officer, who denied both applications. The judge found that one applicant’s criminal arrest history and failure to disclose it demonstrated a lack of maturity and responsibility, while the other applicant’s criminal history, including a youthful-offender adjudication for robbery, similarly indicated he was not qualified for a license.After their applications were denied, the applicants filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. They sued the judge in both his individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the claims against the judge in his individual capacity, holding that absolute judicial immunity applied because the judge was acting in a judicial role. The court also dismissed the official-capacity claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, finding that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement and § 1983’s limitations barred such claims against a judge acting in this capacity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that judges deciding firearms license applications under New York law act in a judicial capacity and are therefore entitled to absolute immunity from individual-capacity suits for damages. The court further held that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement bars claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against state court judges in their official capacity when they act as neutral adjudicators without a personal or institutional stake in the challenged law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Kellogg v. Nichols" on Justia Law

Brandon Prawl was convicted after a jury trial of several offenses arising from heroin distribution activities in Schenectady, New York. The evidence at trial showed that Prawl sold heroin to an undercover investigator on four occasions in September 2019, often retrieving the drugs from an apartment at 1526 Devine Street. On October 4, 2019, police raided the apartment and found Prawl in a bedroom with his identification card listing the apartment as his address. In the same room, officers discovered heroin, drug paraphernalia, and an unloaded handgun with a loaded magazine nearby. Prawl did not have a license for the firearm.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Judge Suddaby) presided over the trial. Prawl was indicted for four counts of heroin distribution, one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin. At trial, the government’s arguments and the district court’s jury instructions linked the firearm possession charge to Prawl’s possession with intent to distribute heroin on October 4, rather than to the September sales as specified in the indictment. Prawl did not object to this at trial. The jury convicted him on all counts, and he was sentenced to a total of 84 months’ imprisonment.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Prawl challenged only his conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the indictment was constructively amended in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Second Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that Prawl had abandoned his constructive amendment claim on appeal, and that, even if not abandoned, any error was not plain. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "United States v. Prawl" on Justia Law

Two defendants were charged and convicted for their roles in a large-scale ATM skimming operation that spanned the United States, Europe, and Mexico, resulting in millions of dollars in losses to financial institutions and individual account holders. The scheme involved installing skimming devices and hidden cameras on ATMs to steal debit card numbers and PINs, creating counterfeit cards, withdrawing cash from victims’ accounts, and laundering the proceeds overseas. One defendant was primarily involved in sending and receiving skimming devices and laundering money, while the other built and distributed skimming devices, supervised cash-outs, and was found with skimming equipment and counterfeit cards in his garage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over the trial. One defendant was convicted by a jury on all counts, while the other pled guilty to most charges and was convicted by a jury of aggravated identity theft. Both received below-Guidelines sentences (92 and 120 months) and were ordered to pay restitution in installments, with the option to use the Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Financial Responsibility Plan (IFRP). The defendants appealed, jointly challenging their aggravated identity theft convictions, and individually raising issues regarding the suppression of evidence, sentencing enhancements, and the restitution payment schedule.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that debit card numbers and PINs are “means of identification” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, thus supporting the aggravated identity theft convictions. The court also upheld the denial of the suppression motion, finding the search of the garage lawful as a protective sweep incident to arrest. The court found no procedural or substantive error in the sentences. However, it vacated the restitution order for one defendant and remanded for clarification of the installment payment schedule during incarceration. All other aspects of the convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "United States of America v. Constantinescu" on Justia Law

The Internal Revenue Service sent a notice of deficiency to two taxpayers regarding their 2018 income tax return. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer generally has ninety days from the date the notice is mailed to file a petition with the United States Tax Court to challenge the deficiency. In this case, the taxpayers’ counsel filed the petition nine days after the ninety-day deadline had passed.The United States Tax Court, presided over by Chief Judge Kerrigan, found that the IRS had properly mailed the notice and that the petition was untimely. Relying on longstanding precedent, the Tax Court concluded that the ninety-day deadline in section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code was jurisdictional, meaning that missing the deadline deprived the court of the power to hear the case. The Tax Court therefore dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The taxpayers appealed this dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the Tax Court’s dismissal de novo. The Second Circuit held that, in light of recent Supreme Court decisions, the ninety-day deadline in section 6213(a) is not jurisdictional but is instead a nonjurisdictional, claim-processing rule. The court further held that this deadline is subject to equitable tolling, meaning that the Tax Court may consider late petitions if the taxpayers can show that equitable tolling is warranted. The Second Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for the Tax Court to determine whether the taxpayers are entitled to equitable tolling. View "Buller v. Comm'r" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former employee of a dental supply company, suffered a traumatic brain injury and later filed a claim for long-term disability (LTD) benefits under her employer’s LTD plan, which was insured and administered by an independent insurance company. After her claim was denied, she left her job and entered into a separation agreement with her employer. This agreement included a broad release of claims against the employer and its “parents, subsidiaries, related or affiliated entities,” as well as their agents, including claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Before signing, the plaintiff sought clarification from her employer about whether the release would affect her ability to pursue her LTD claim against the insurer. The employer’s representatives assured her that the insurer was a separate, independent entity and that the agreement would not impact her ability to appeal the denial of her LTD claim.After the insurer denied her appeal, the plaintiff sued the insurer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of ERISA. The insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the release in the separation agreement barred her claims. The district court agreed, holding that the insurer was covered by the release and that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived her ERISA claims against it. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, and the plaintiff appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the plaintiff did not knowingly and voluntarily release her ERISA claims against the insurer. The court emphasized the employer’s express assurances to the plaintiff that the release would not affect her LTD claim and found no evidence to create a genuine dispute on this point. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Schuyler v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada" on Justia Law