Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, sought leave to file a successive habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 where she was convicted of reckless manslaughter and depraved indifference murder in connection with the death of her infant child. At issue was whether petitioner's due process rights were violated when New York's appellate courts violated her application for a writ of error coram nobis where she alleged that she was denied effective assistance of counsel in her district court appeal. The court denied the petition and held that petitioner did not raise a claim cognizable under section 2254 where a section 2254 petition was not a proper vehicle for challenging deficiencies in a state post-conviction proceeding.

Plaintiff, an African-American, sued defendants pro se alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law where plaintiff was charged with a traffic violation by a state trooper and where plaintiff alleged that the charge was false and that the trooper's actions were motivated by plaintiff's race. At issue was whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff's motion to reopen his case, which the district court had administratively closed, because of plaintiff's failure to obtain counsel. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion where the inability of an individual litigant to obtain counsel was not a basis for denying him his statutory right to pursue his case pro se.

Plaintiffs sued defendants, Nassau County, New York and/or MTA Long Island Bus ("MTA"), asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., where the gravamen of the lawsuits was that defendants implemented substantial reductions in paratransit services without allowing for the public participation of users of the services required by the ADA regulations and failed to make reasonable modifications to existing services so as to ameliorate the effect of the service reductions. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' cases on the grounds that the regulations did not apply to the service cuts in question and that the Department of Justice's ("DOJ") reasonable modifications requirement did not apply to paratransit services. The court held that 49 C.F.R. 37.137(c) of the ADA could not be enforced in a private right of action based on 49 C.F.R. 12143 where the failure to permit public participation did not constitute discrimination under section 12143. The court also read section 12134 to mean that the DOJ's reasonable modifications regulations did not apply to public entities providing paratransit services outside the ADA service area. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' cases.

The United States sued the New York City Board of Education and related parties ("City Defendants") claiming a violation of Title VII's prohibition of disparate impact selection measures. The parties entered into a settlement in 1999 despite objections from incumbent employees who were denied leave to intervene in the suit. The incumbent employees' lawsuits raised the issue of whether the City Defendants' voluntary implementation of the settlement agreement violated section 703(a) of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1983. In addition to the central holding, the court addressed several other issues. The court held that because the district court in its Title VII analysis reached results inconsistent with the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, its judgment must be vacated and remanded with two exceptions. First, the court affirmed the district court's grant of class certification and second, paragraph 4 of the district court's declaratory judgment had not been appealed and therefore must stand.

Plaintiffs sued defendants, the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, alleging that defendants discriminated against them in administering New Haven's Housing Choice Voucher ("Section 8") program in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. 3604(d); the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ("FHAA"), 42 U.S.C. 3604(f), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, as well as regulations promulgated thereunder, 24 C.F.R. 8, 28, 100.204. At issue was whether the district court erred in concluding that 24 C.F.R. 8, 28, and 100.204 could not be privately enforced through 42 U.S.C. 1983; in the analysis of plaintiffs' intentional discrimination claim under the FHAA; in factual findings regarding the provision of Section 8 services to the class; in rulings on certain discovery issues; and in decertification. The court adopted the district court's findings and conclusions and held that the district court carefully considered and thoroughly discussed these issues. The court also considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and held that they were without merit.

Defendant appealed a judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus where defendant was convicted of Murder in the First Degree for hiring one individual to kill another individual. At issue was whether the trial court erred in admitting a videotaped statement defendant made while in police custody. The court held that the statement was erroneously admitted in violation of defendant's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel where defendant had invoked his right to counsel before making the statements on videotape. The court also held that the error was not harmless where it had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment and remanded with instructions to grant the writ.

The City of New York ("City") brought suit against defendants, retail firearms dealers located in South Carolina and Georgia, alleging public nuisance on the theory that they intentionally or negligently sold firearms in a manner susceptible to illegal trafficking to the City. After engaging in litigation with the City for several years, each defendant defaulted and upon entry of default judgment, the district court issued permanent injunctions prohibiting defendants from further violations of the law and required them to undergo supervision by court-appointed special master. At issue was whether a default judgment should have been entered; whether the default judgment was, in any event, void for lack of personal jurisdiction over each defendant; and, in the alternative, that the injunctions violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) or are unconstitutional. The court held that defendants' withdrawal from the district court proceedings justified the entry of default, followed by default judgment; that defendants forfeited their defense of lack of personal jurisdiction; and that the default judgment was not void. The court also held that the injunctions issued by the district court violated Rule 65(d) and therefore vacated the injunctions and remanded for further proceedings.

Defendants appealed convictions of murder in aid of racketeering, witness tampering, and conspiracy to commit witness tampering. At issue was whether defendants should have been granted a new trial after the posttrial discovery of the victim's body, whether there were prejudicial errors in the admission of certain testimony by the victim's widow, whether the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions on the witness-tampering counts; and whether the government improperly withheld information that was material to the defense. Also at issue was whether the admission of certain testimony by the victim's daughter was unduly prejudicial and whether the evidence was sufficient to support one of the defendant's conviction of the murder count. The court considered all of defendants' arguments and found them to be without merit and therefore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.