Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

This suit stemmed from plaintiff's suit for breach of contract against his former employer, ICD, and tortious interference with contract against ICD's president. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's order, which amended a judgment to provide that plaintiff was entitled to post-judgment interest at the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1961, contending that he was entitled to a post-judgment interest at the rate set forth in C.P.L.R. 5004. The court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to .25% post-judgment interest where section 1961's plain terms governed the rate of post-judgment interest applicable in this case. Accordingly, the district court correctly and constitutionally applied section 1961, notwithstanding that the judgment had been entered in a diversity action and had been docketed by plaintiff in a New York state court. View "Cappiello v. ICD Publ'ns, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondent appealed the district court's grant of her husband's petition for repatriation of their son from New York to Singapore. At issue was whether respondent's affirmative defenses to repatriation should have prevailed in the district court. The court concluded that, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11, 670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89, and its implementing statute, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. 11601-10, the evidence did not establish that the child faced a grave risk of physical or psychological harm upon repatriation (Article 13 defense). The court also held that it was not inclined to conclude that the presence of a Syariah Court in a foreign state whose accession to the Convention had been recognized by the United States was per se violative of all notions of due process; the court was also mindful of the need for comity; and, therefore, the district court did not err in rejecting respondent's Article 20 defense. Respondent's remaining arguments were without merit and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Souratgar v. Fair" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiring to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana knowing that it would be unlawfully imported into the United States and conspiring to import 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana. The court held that ongoing, formalized collaboration between an American law enforcement agency and its foreign counterpart did not, by itself, give rise to an "agency" relationship between the two entities sufficient to implicate the Fourth Amendment abroad; the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule did not impose a duty upon American law enforcement officials to review the legality, under foreign law, of applications for surveillance authority considered by foreign courts; defendant was not entitled to discovery of the wiretap application materials, submitted by Jamaican law enforcement to courts in that nation, underlying the electronic surveillance abroad; the district court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of the foreign wiretaps and his motion to compel the documentation underlying the foreign wiretap orders; defendant's amended judgment of conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and the district court properly admitted expert testimony at defendant's trial regarding the values and quantities of marijuana generally used by drug traffickers in the course of distribution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former New York state prisoners who brought separate actions in the district court and whose appeals have been consolidated in this court, appealed from the district court's judgment dismissing their complaints against officials of the New York State DOCS and the Parole Division. The complaints, brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for damages and declaratory relief, alleged that defendants violated plaintiffs' due process rights as announced in Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler and described in Earley v. Murray, by administratively imposing and enforcing conditions of supervision on plaintiffs following their release from prison, despite the absence of any order for such supervision by the courts that sentenced plaintiffs for their crimes. The court concluded that Earley I did not rule that the rights asserted by plaintiffs were clearly established by Wampler with respect to a defense of qualified immunity; but the court concluded that Earley I itself did clearly establish the unconstitutionality of the administrative imposition or enforcement of postrelease conditions that were not judicially imposed. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. View "Vincent v. Yelich; Earley v. Annuci" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, labor organizations and state employees, brought this action contending that defendants, state officials, violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association. The court concluded that, on the stipulated facts, defendants violated plaintiffs' rights by targeting union employees for firing based on their union membership. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants; remanded to the district court with instruction to grant summary judgment to plaintiffs on their First Amendment claim and to craft appropriate equitable relief; reversed the district court's dismissal on the pleadings of plaintiffs' claims against defendants in their individual capacities; and remanded those claims for further proceedings. View "State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition v. Rowland" on Justia Law

In this suit - which was originally filed in state court in California, later removed to federal court in California, and then voluntarily transferred to the district court - the district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the suit pursuant to California's anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) rule, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16, on the basis that New York law governed plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim. The court held that the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss under California's anti-SLAPP rule constituted an immediately appealable collateral order because it (1) conclusively determined the disputed issue; (2) resolved an important question that was completely separate from the merits of the action; and (3) would be effectively unreviewable in a later appeal. The court also held that the district court erred in concluding that California's anti-SLAPP rule could not apply to a claim transferred from a California federal court to a New York federal court and governed, under the Erie doctrine, by New York law. Accordingly, the district court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP rule was vacated, and the cause was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Liberty Synergistics Inc. v. Microflo Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint alleging that his conditions of confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. First, he plausibly alleged conditions that, perhaps alone and certainly in combination, deprived him of a minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. Second, he plausibly alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to this deprivation. Third, he plausibly alleged violations of clearly established rights. In light of the specific allegations here, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Walker v. Schult" on Justia Law

The United States brought suit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., alleging racial discrimination in the hiring of New York City firefighters. On appeal, the City of New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and former Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta challenged the district court's order issuing an injunction against the City with respect to the hiring of entry-level firefighters. Intervenors cross-appealed a partial final judgment dismissing their federal and state law claims against Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Scoppetta. The City, inter alia, sought review of an order granting Intervenors summary judgment on their disparate treatment claim. The court concluded that (1) summary judgment was improperly entered on Intervenors' disparate treatment claims; (2) the federal and state law claims against Mayor Bloomberg were properly dismissed, as were the state law claims against Commissioner Scopetta, but the federal law claims against Commissioner Scoppetta should be reinstated; (3) most portions of the injunction based on the unchallenged disparate impact finding were within the district court's remedial discretion, but other portions, particularly those portions based on the improper discriminatory treatment ruling, exceeded that discretion; and (4) on remand, the bench trial on the liability phase of the disparate treatment claim against the City should be reassigned to a different district judge. Therefore, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "United States v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The City amended it's zoning laws to prohibit the nonconforming use of non-owner-occupied multiple dwellings in various zoning districts. Plaintiffs alleged that the City's failure to notify them, as affected property owners, prior to enacting this zoning change violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the change of zoning rules did not offend the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause because the zoning amendment was prospective and generally applicable, and was therefore "legislative" in character rather than "adjudicative." View "Edelhertz v. City of Middletown" on Justia Law

The Steel institute appealed the district court's grant of the City's motion for summary judgment and dismissal of its complaint, which alleged that the City's regulation of cranes and other hoisting equipment was preempted by federal law. The court granted some weight to OSHA's view in reaching its conclusion that local regulatory schemes such as the City's crane regulations have the aim and primary effect of regulating conduct to secure the safety of the general public, rather than the safety of workers in the workplace. Therefore, the City's crane regulations were saved from preemption as laws of general applicability and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Steel Institute of New York v. City of New York" on Justia Law