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

Brian Flores, a current NFL coach, brought a putative class action against the National Football League and several of its member clubs, including the Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and Houston Texans, alleging racial discrimination under federal, state, and local law. Flores’s claims stemmed from his interviews and employment experiences with these teams, during which he alleged discriminatory hiring practices. His employment contracts with various NFL teams incorporated the NFL Constitution, which contains a broad arbitration provision granting the NFL Commissioner authority to arbitrate disputes between coaches and member clubs.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration based on Flores’s employment agreements. The District Court granted the motion for claims against the Miami Dolphins, Arizona Cardinals, and Tennessee Titans, but denied it for Flores’s claims against the Broncos, Giants, Texans, and related claims against the NFL. The court found the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision illusory and unenforceable under Massachusetts law, as it allowed unilateral modification by the NFL and lacked a signed agreement in one instance. The District Court also denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders. The Second Circuit held that the NFL Constitution’s arbitration provision, which vested unilateral substantive and procedural authority in the NFL Commissioner, did not qualify for protection under the Federal Arbitration Act and was unenforceable because it failed to guarantee Flores the ability to vindicate his statutory claims in an impartial arbitral forum. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for reconsideration, concluding there was no abuse of discretion. View "Flores v. N.Y. Football Giants" on Justia Law

After Congress enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, which capped the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) at $10,000, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and the Village of Scarsdale created or planned programs allowing residents to make contributions to state-administered charitable funds in exchange for significant state or local tax credits. These programs were designed to help residents recover some of the lost federal tax benefit by allowing them to claim a federal charitable deduction for the full amount contributed, despite receiving a state or local tax credit in return. In response, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Treasury Department issued a regulation (the “Final Rule”) requiring taxpayers to reduce their federal charitable deduction by the amount of any state or local tax credit received for the contribution.The States and Scarsdale sued the IRS and Treasury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that the Final Rule exceeded the IRS’s statutory authority under 26 U.S.C. § 170 and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the government, finding the IRS’s interpretation reasonable under Chevron deference and holding the rule was not arbitrary or capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that New York and Scarsdale had Article III standing, and that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the suit because there was no alternative procedure for the plaintiffs to challenge the rule. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron, the Second Circuit independently interpreted § 170 and concluded that the IRS’s rule was consistent with the statute’s quid pro quo principle. The court also found the rule was not arbitrary or capricious. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "New Jersey v. Bessent" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man convicted in New York state court of attempted second-degree murder, attempted first-degree robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon, following an incident in which he attempted to rob a man and then fired at both the intended victim and responding police officers. During jury selection, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike several Black prospective jurors. Defense counsel objected, arguing that these strikes were racially discriminatory under Batson v. Kentucky. The trial court appeared to agree that two of the strikes violated Batson, but due to an administrative error, the dismissed jurors could not be recalled. Defense counsel did not object to the lack of a Batson remedy, and the trial proceeded with the selected jury.On direct appeal, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court found that the Batson claim was unpreserved for appellate review because defense counsel had not objected to the absence of a remedy at trial. The court also rejected the argument that counsel was constitutionally ineffective. The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.The petitioner then sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, arguing that his counsel’s failure to seek a Batson remedy constituted ineffective assistance. The district court denied the petition, holding that the claim was procedurally defaulted and that counsel’s performance was not constitutionally deficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the petitioner failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not meet his burden of demonstrating that his trial counsel lacked strategic reasons for not seeking a Batson remedy. The court declined to require defense counsel to pursue Batson remedies at the expense of their client’s strategic interests. The judgment denying habeas relief was affirmed. View "Carew v. Morton" on Justia Law

A construction worker employed by a subcontractor was injured when a scaffold collapsed at a Manhattan worksite. The worker sued the property owner and general contractor in New York Supreme Court, alleging negligence and violations of state labor laws. The owner’s insurer, Liberty Insurance Corporation, sought a declaration in federal court that the subcontractor’s insurer, Hudson Excess Insurance Company, was obligated to defend and indemnify the owner as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s commercial general liability policy. The subcontract between the general contractor and the subcontractor required the latter to provide insurance coverage for the owner and general contractor.In the New York Supreme Court, summary judgment was granted to the injured worker on some claims, while other claims remained pending. The court denied summary judgment to the owner on its contractual indemnification claim against the subcontractor, finding factual questions about the scope of the subcontractor’s work. Later, after the federal district court’s decision, the state court dismissed all third-party claims against the subcontractor, finding the indemnity provision in the subcontract invalid due to lack of a meeting of the minds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s finding, after a bench trial on stipulated facts, that the subcontractor’s actions proximately caused the worker’s injuries and that Hudson owed a duty to indemnify the owner under the policy. The Second Circuit held that the later state court decision did not alter this result. However, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Liberty, holding that Hudson was entitled to a statutory safe harbor under New York Insurance Law, and thus was not required to pay Liberty’s attorney’s fees for the federal action. View "Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Hudson Excess Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that she was sexually abused by the defendant during a period in 1965 when she was a minor. The plaintiff was represented by two attorneys. The case was initially filed in state court but was later removed to federal court. During discovery, the plaintiff’s attorneys repeatedly failed to meet deadlines for responding to the defendant’s requests for production of documents and interrogatories. Despite multiple extensions and explicit warnings from the court, the attorneys continued to miss deadlines and failed to produce documents that were known to exist, some of which were obtained by the defendant through third-party subpoenas. The plaintiff eventually discharged her attorneys and voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the defendant’s motion for sanctions against the plaintiff’s attorneys under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The district court found that the attorneys had violated a specific discovery order by missing a court-imposed deadline and had demonstrated a willful disregard for their discovery obligations over several months, despite repeated warnings. The court imposed monetary sanctions of $5,000 against one attorney and $3,000 against the other, finding that a full award of expenses would be unjust under the circumstances.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing these sanctions. The Second Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, finding that the attorneys had violated a clear court order and that the sanctions were appropriately tailored. The court affirmed the imposition of sanctions, concluding that the attorneys’ conduct warranted monetary penalties under Rule 37. View "Isaacs v. Zimmerman" on Justia Law

Several individuals with developmental disabilities, along with Disability Rights New York (DRNY), an advocacy organization, alleged that New York State agencies responsible for services to people with developmental disabilities caused them to remain in restrictive institutional settings for extended periods, despite being eligible for community-based residential placements. The individual plaintiffs claimed they waited from nine months to six years for such placements, resulting in physical and psychological harm. DRNY, as the state’s designated Protection and Advocacy System, joined the suit, asserting authority to represent the interests of individuals with disabilities under federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York first addressed the defendants’ motion to dismiss DRNY’s claims for lack of standing, agreeing that DRNY had not suffered an injury in fact and rejecting its argument that federal statutes conferred “congressionally authorized representational standing.” The district court also dismissed the individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot, based on pre-motion letters from the defendants indicating that all individual plaintiffs had since been moved out of institutional facilities. Additionally, the court denied a motion by other individuals seeking to intervene as plaintiffs, finding the motion untimely.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of DRNY’s claims, holding that DRNY lacked standing because it had not suffered a concrete injury and that Congress could not override Article III’s standing requirements by statute. The Second Circuit also affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s timeliness determination. However, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the individual plaintiffs’ claims as moot, holding that the district court erred by dismissing those claims based solely on pre-motion letters without full briefing or a hearing. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the individual plaintiffs’ claims. View "A.H. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health" on Justia Law

Two limited liability companies, majority-owned by California residents, applied for provisional licenses to operate marijuana dispensaries in New York under the state’s Adult Use application program. New York law gives “Extra Priority” to applicants who meet three criteria: (a) membership in a community disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition, (b) income below 80% of the county median, and (c) a conviction for a marijuana-related offense under New York law (or a close relative with such a conviction). The plaintiffs met the first two criteria but had marijuana convictions under California, not New York, law, making them ineligible for Extra Priority. They alleged that this licensing scheme discriminates against out-of-state applicants in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief, holding that the dormant Commerce Clause does not apply to markets that Congress has criminalized, such as marijuana. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the state’s prioritization scheme was protectionist and that they had standing to challenge both the December Pool (in which they applied) and the November Pool (which was processed first and favored prior CAURD applicants, mostly New Yorkers).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the December Pool’s Extra Priority regime and the November Pool’s precedence, but not the CAURD program. The court found the dormant Commerce Clause applies to New York’s marijuana licensing, as Congress has not clearly authorized state protectionism in this area. The court held that New York’s prioritization of applicants with New York marijuana convictions is a protectionist measure that violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The district court’s denial of preliminary relief was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Variscite NY Four, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Board" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in 2012 of assaulting the mother of his child, which constituted a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under New York law. Several years later, he was arrested in New York City for possessing a firearm, specifically a .380 caliber pistol, after having been previously convicted of that domestic violence misdemeanor. He pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a firearm after a domestic violence conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). At sentencing, the district court considered his criminal history, including a 2013 state drug conviction, and imposed a forty-eight-month prison term and three years of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that the 2013 state drug conviction did not qualify as a “controlled substance offense” under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, resulting in a lower base offense level for sentencing. Both the defendant and the government appealed: the defendant challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) under the Second Amendment and the reasonableness of his sentence, while the government contested the district court’s interpretation of the drug conviction under the Guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that § 922(g)(9) is constitutional, both facially and as applied to the defendant, because it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of disarming individuals deemed dangerous, such as those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The court also found that the defendant’s sentencing challenges were moot, as he had completed his prison term and there was no indication the district court would reduce his supervised release. Additionally, the court agreed with the government’s concession that its cross-appeal was foreclosed by recent precedent. The court dismissed the appeal in part as moot and otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Luis Rodriguez was convicted by a jury in 2006 for his involvement in a murder-for-hire plot that resulted in the deaths of two individuals, including a fourteen-year-old, as part of a drug trafficking conspiracy. He was also found guilty of related drug and firearm offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment. After his conviction, Rodriguez pursued several post-trial challenges, including a direct appeal and a habeas petition, both of which were unsuccessful. While incarcerated, Rodriguez filed a motion for compassionate release, citing his conduct in prison, alleged harsh conditions and radon exposure, health risks from COVID-19, and purported sentencing errors.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied Rodriguez’s motion for compassionate release. The court found that Rodriguez had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction, noting his significant disciplinary record while in custody and the lack of evidence supporting his claims about prison conditions and health risks. The court also determined that the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), particularly the seriousness of his offenses and the need to protect the public, weighed strongly against reducing his sentence. The court declined to consider collateral attacks on his conviction, as such arguments were not appropriate in a compassionate release motion and had already been rejected in prior proceedings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of compassionate release. Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the Second Circuit held that the district court acted well within its broad discretion in denying relief based on the § 3553(a) factors. The appellate court found that Rodriguez’s appeal lacked any arguable basis in law or fact and dismissed the appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court also denied his motions for appointment of counsel and for a certificate of appealability. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff brought a defamation claim against Donald J. Trump, based on statements he made in June 2019 during his first term as President. The suit was initially filed in New York state court. In September 2020, the Department of Justice, acting under the Westfall Act, certified that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment and removed the case to federal court, seeking to substitute the United States as the defendant. The District Court for the Southern District of New York denied substitution, finding Trump was not acting within the scope of his employment. Trump appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and certified a question to the D.C. Court of Appeals regarding the scope of employment under D.C. law. The D.C. Court of Appeals clarified the law but did not resolve whether Trump’s conduct was within the scope of employment. The Second Circuit remanded for the District Court to apply the clarified law.On remand, the Department of Justice declined to certify that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment, and neither Trump nor the government sought substitution before trial. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding substantial damages. Trump appealed. After the appeal was fully briefed, and after Trump began his second term as President, Trump and the government jointly moved in the Second Circuit to substitute the United States as a party under the Westfall Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the motion to substitute. The court held that the motion was statutorily barred by the Westfall Act because it was not made before trial, that both Trump and the government had waived any right to seek substitution by failing to timely petition the District Court, and that equitable considerations also warranted denial of the belated motion. View "Carroll v. Trump" on Justia Law