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

Petitioner challenged an order of removal based on his violation of a court protection order and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, appointment of counsel, and a stay of removal. Respondent, in turn, moved to expedite the petition.The Second Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review of a removal order based on his violation of a court protection order. The court held that removability under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) is determined by a circumstance-specific inquiry as to whether a court found a particular alien’s conduct to violate a protection order then applicable to him, and whether that violation pertained to a provision of the order involving protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person for whom the protection order was issued. Here, because Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary lack any arguable basis in law or fact, and because his other challenges to removability and to the denial of cancellation of removal are similarly frivolous, the court dismissed his petition and denied all motions, both by the Petitioner and the Respondent, as moot. View "Alvarez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Appellants, heirs to the late songwriter and record producer Hugo Peretti, appealed from the district court’s order dismissing Appellants’ action, which sought a declaratory judgment that Appellants had validly terminated a 1983 grant of rights in the copyright to the hit song “Can’t Help Falling in Love.” The district court dismissed the action, holding that the grant was not “executed by the author” under Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976 and therefore that Appellants had no statutory right to terminate the grant.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling and held that Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976 applies only to grants executed by the author. While Hugo Peretti’s signature is affixed to the grant document at issue, the interests at issue are the contingent rights held and transferred to the Appellees’ predecessors-in-interest by Peretti’s spouse and children, the grant of which was not and cannot be executed by the author.  The court reasoned that while Hugo Peretti’s signature is on the 1983 Assignment, he cannot have executed a grant transferring rights, such as those owned by his family members, that he did not hold. Rather, his signature on the grant document transfers only his own contingent right to the renewal term, while his wife’s and daughters’ signatures transferred their respective contingent rights. Thus, because Hugo Peretti died before his contingent right vested, the rights transferred to Appellee’s predecessors-in-interest were the contingent rights held by his wife and daughter. View "Peretti v. Authentic Brands Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a judgment entered in district court following a jury trial, convicting him of conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by failing to consider his proffered evidence that the illegal trading activity lacked anticompetitive effects and had procompetitive benefits and by refusing to conduct a pre-trial assessment as to whether the per se rule or the rule of reason applies. He further contended that the district court abused its discretion in precluding his competitive effects evidence from admission at trial and in conducting only a limited post-trial inquiry into juror misconduct.   The Second Circuit affirmed the ruling, concluding that the district court was not required to make a threshold pre-trial determination as to whether the per se rule or the rule of reason applies to the alleged misconduct in this case. The court reasoned that the grand jury indicted Defendant for a per se antitrust violation and the government was entitled to present its case to the jury. The district court properly assessed the sufficiency of the evidence of the alleged per se violation and the sufficiency decision upholding the verdict is not challenged on appeal. In addition, the district court acted within its broad discretion in strictly limiting the admission of Defendant’s competitive effects evidence at trial. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ending its post-trial investigation into alleged juror misconduct. View "United States v. Aiyer" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of an immigration officer’s decision to reinstate a prior order of removal against him and for review of an immigration judge’s subsequent decision that he does not qualify to pursue claims for withholding of removal to India. Petitioner was removed from the United States in 2010 and again in 2017, the latter time pursuant to a removal order entered on March 25, 2016, he expressed a fear of persecution and torture in India based on his political views, triggering the protocol set out in 8 C.F.R. Sec. 208.31   The Second Circuit dismissed the immigration Petitioner’s petition for review of an immigration officer’s decision to reinstate a prior order of removal. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction because Petitioner sought review of withholding-only decisions but no final order of removal subject to judicial review. The court reasoned that Illegal reentrants are “not eligible and may not apply for any relief under” the INA and “shall be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry.” View "Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs the Civil Service Employees Association (“CSEA”) and certain of its officers and retired former members (collectively, “the CSEA Plaintiffs”) brought a breach of contract action and unconstitutional impairment of contractual obligations claim against various New York State officials (collectively, “the State”), based on the State’s 2011 decision to reduce its contributions to certain retired former employees’ health insurance premiums. The district court granted summary judgment to the State on the CSEA Plaintiffs’ Contract Clause claim.After certifying questions to the New York Court of appeals regarding CBA provisions, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and found that the State’s adjustment of contribution rates for retirees neither breached any of the contractual provisions that the CSEA Plaintiffs identified nor impaired any constitutionally protected contractual obligations. The court reasoned that in light of the answers to its certified questions the CBA provisions that the CSEA Plaintiffs cite unambiguously do not provide a vested lifetime right to fixed contribution rates for retirees, and thus the reduction in contribution rates could not have breached the CBAs. Further, the court held that the State’s adjustment of retirees’ contribution rates did not violate the Contract Clause because the CSEA Plaintiffs lacked any contractual right to a vested lifetime contribution rate. View "Donohue v. The State of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a federal action against the State of Connecticut, a colonel in his official capacity, and a retired detective in her individual capacity, alleging three constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Plaintiff alleged that those provisions of Connecticut’s sex offender registration statute that required him to disclose his email address and other internet communication identifiers and periodically to verify his residence violated the First Amendment and the Ex Post Facto Clause. Plaintiff further alleged that the detective engaged in malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment by seeking an arrest warrant for Plaintiff’s alleged failure to disclose one of his email addresses. The district court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims.The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his Post Facto Clause and malicious prosecution claims. The court concluded that the burden of demonstrating that the disclosure requirement satisfied intermediate scrutiny fell on the government and the government must show that the challenged law advances important governmental interests and is narrowly tailored to those interests. The court found that the government did not make the showing.The court further found that because the residence verification provision has not been applied to Plaintiff retroactively, the Ex Post Facto Clause is not implicated. Finally, although the history between Plaintiff and the Sex Offender Registry Unit suggests a motivation to harass him, an officer cannot be liable for a vexatious motivation as long as she acts with arguable probable cause. View "Cornelio v. Connecticut" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her employer, the Institute of International Education, for discrimination in violation of federal, state, and local, employment law. The district court referred the matter to New York’s mediation program and the parties reached an agreement to settle the case. The parties committed that agreement to writing, signed it, had their counsel sign it, and had the mediator sign it. The week after the mediation, Plaintiff contacted the district court seeking to revoke her acceptance of the mediation agreement and to continue the litigation. The Institute then moved to enforce the mediation agreement. The district court enforced the mediation agreement and entered judgment in favor of the Institute.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court judgment. The court concluded that the mediation agreement bound the parties to its terms. The court reasoned that the case is not one in which the language of the agreement merely committed the parties to “work together in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in” the agreement, which would be an agreement to continue negotiating. And while this language was pre-printed, the parties could have crossed it out if they did not intend to acknowledge that agreement on all issues had been reached or they could have added language in the handwritten portion of the mediation agreement reserving the right not to be bound by the mediation agreement’s terms until the final agreement was drafted. Further, the court found that Plaintiff was not under duress when she signed the mediation agreement. View "Murphy v. Inst. of Int'l Educ." on Justia Law

Defendants appeal from judgments of the district court convicting them of crimes arising from their participation in a street gang known as the Six Tre Outlaw Gangsta Disciples Folk Nation. All three were convicted of violating the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) (Count One), of conspiring to violate RICO (Count Two), and of unlawful use of firearms “during and in 12 relation to a crime of violence . . . .” in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) (Count 13 Three). In addition Defendant 1 was convicted of murder in aid of racketeering 14 (Count Four), Defendant 2 was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering (Count Six) as well as additional violations of Sec 924(c) 16 (Counts Seven and Ten), and both Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 were convicted of Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy and attempted Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy (Counts Eight, Nine, Eleven, and Twelve).   While this appeal was pending, the Second Circuit Court concluded that RICO conspiracy could not be a crime of violence for purposes of Sec. 924(c). The court then vacated Defendant 3’s Count Three conviction, reasoning that the court could not be confident that the jury’s Section 924(c) conviction rested on a valid predicate. Further, the court reversed Defendant 2’s Count Ten conviction with prejudice, because Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy cannot be a crime of violence under Sec. 924(c). Finally, the court rejected Defendants’ other 26 challenges. View "United States v. Laurent" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder and other offenses in New York state court. During jury selection, Petitioner’s lawyer exercised peremptory strikes against two male jurors, but the prosecutor raised a “reverse-Batson” challenge; which is a claim that the defendant (rather than the prosecution) was using strikes in a discriminatory manner. The state court disallowed the two strikes, and Petitioner was convicted. Petitioner petitioned unsuccessfully for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 in the United States District Court. On appeal, Petitioner renews his challenge to the state court’s reverse-Batson ruling.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that it need not determine whether the state court properly applied Batson or erred in disallowing the two peremptory strikes because those claims are not cognizable under Section 2254. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court has held that a state defendant has no freestanding federal constitutional right to peremptory strikes, and so a state court’s mistaken disallowance of such a strike does not, standing alone, form a basis for federal habeas relief. Thus,  any procedural error by the state court in following the three-step Batson framework would not, without more, constitute a violation of a federal constitutional right. View "Murray v. Noeth" on Justia Law

During the height of the COVID-19 public health crisis, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge issued a preliminary injunction principally requiring the United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement ("ICE") to release Petitioner and three others from immigration detention. The government appealed from an August 2020 order denying its motion to vacate or modify. The government sought permission to re-detain Petitioner on the ground that since his release he has been arrested and charged with crimes, thereby violating the court-imposed condition that he does not commit a crime while on release. The district court denied the motion.   The Second Circuit concluded that the court erred in ruling that a release condition prohibiting the commission of a crime is not violated unless there has been a criminal conviction. The court reasoned that the district court based its decision not on an assessment of the evidence as to Petitioner’s conduct but rather on its view as a matter of law that a release condition prohibiting the commission of a crime is not violated unless and until there is a conviction. The court also remanded for the district court to reconsider the government's motion, taking into account whether it was more likely than not that Petitioner committed a crime while on release. View "Villiers v. Decker" on Justia Law