Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant challenged the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the forty-five-year sentence imposed by the district court following her guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to sexually exploit a child and two substantive counts of sexual exploitation of a child. On appeal, Defendant argues that the district court erred when it (1) predetermined her sentence at the outset of the sentencing proceeding, (2) failed to verify at sentencing whether she and her counsel had read and discussed the presentence investigation report, (3) miscalculated her offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and (4) imposed a substantively unreasonable term of imprisonment.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court rejected Defendant’s contentions that the district court predetermined her sentence and imposed a substantively unreasonable term of imprisonment. The court also rejected Defendant’s claim that the district court’s purported miscalculation of her offense level under the Guidelines warrants remand in this case. With respect to Defendant’s remaining argument, the court agreed that the district court failed to verify whether she and her counsel had read and discussed the PSR in advance of sentencing, as is required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A). The court concluded that the error was not prejudicial. View "United States v. Gates" on Justia Law

Petitioners appealed from orders of the district court denying their petitions for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, following their 2012 convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence – specifically, the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy – that caused the death of another person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) and (j). On appeal, Petitioners contend that the district court erroneously enforced the collateral-attack waivers in their plea agreements, which they argue are unenforceable in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), and United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).   The Second Circuit dismissed the appeal and explained that subsequent changes in the law do not allow Petitioners to back out of their valid agreements with the government; the waivers are enforceable. The court explained that a waiver of the right to bring a postconviction challenge is presumptively enforceable, even after the legal landscape shifts. A defendant who wishes to maintain his right to collaterally attack his conviction in the event of unforeseen legal developments may, of course, attempt to negotiate more favorable waiver terms with the government before pleading guilty. But where the waiver itself is clear, unambiguous, knowingly and voluntarily entered, and supported by consideration – here, the government’s agreement not to pursue charges or arguments that could have resulted in a much higher sentence – the terms of the plea agreements must be enforced. View "Cook v. United States" on Justia Law

While riding a bicycle, Plaintiff ran into an open car door being operated by a recruiter for the U.S. Marines. Plaintiff brought a claim for negligence against the United States, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court found the United States liable but concluded Plaintiff was also negligent and, therefore, partially liable.On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the evidence of Plaintiff's negligence was "dubious," and, even if Plaintiff was negligent, the district court failed to make the findings necessary to any holding that the plaintiff’s negligent conduct sufficiently caused the collision so as to make Plaintiff 40% responsible for the damages. View "Dooley v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the district court’s judgment of conviction on charges including attempted murder in aid of racketeering and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. Defendant argued that his firearms conviction should be vacated because the predicate offenses on which the conviction was based are not “crimes of violence” in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), and United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022).   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Defendant’s section 924(c) conviction remains valid even after Davis and Taylor because one of the predicate offenses underlying the conviction – attempted murder in aid of racketeering – is a categorical crime of violence. The court explained that here, unlike Hobbs Act robbery, the crime of second-degree murder cannot be committed through the mere threat of force and must instead involve the actual use of force. Since attempted murder requires both an intent to use physical force and a substantial step towards the use of physical force, it satisfies the “attempted use . . . of physical force” element under section 924(c), 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(3)(A), and thereby qualifies as a crime of violence. View "United States v. Pastore" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was sitting on a bus when police officers boarded the bus, removed him, and arrested him on a misdemeanor bench warrant. Plaintiff, then 67 years old, was a resident of the City of Elmira (the "City"), in Chemung County (the "County"), New York. Plaintiff was taken to the County Jail, where an officer subjected him to a visual body cavity strip search. In addition, although Plaintiff’s girlfriend promptly posted his bail, his release was delayed about two hours. Plaintiff sued the County, the City, and officers in the County Sheriff's Department and City Police Department in the Western District of New York pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The district court dismissed the claims against the City and County at the outset of the case and eventually granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the individual defendants as well.  Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the claims against the individual defendants.   The Second Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court explained that on the record, a reasonable jury could find that, instead of simply following the orders of a superior officer, the corrections officer was a party to harassment and demeaning conduct culminating in the search -- conduct that he, and other reasonable officers, should have known had no legitimate penological purpose and was therefore unconstitutional. The court explained that a jury may find otherwise, but in light of these disputed material facts, the district court erred when it granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s strip search claim. View "Murphy v. Hughson et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition after previously having been convicted of a felony. The district court determined that Defendant’s recommended range of imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines was 15 to 21 months. On July 7, 2021, the court nevertheless sentenced Defendant principally to an above-Guidelines sentence of 48 months of imprisonment. Defendant argued that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain its rationale for the sentence it imposed on Defendant and because the district court’s stated justifications were insufficient to support the sentence imposed.   The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. The court explained that to hold that Defendant’s sentence was not ultimately reasonable, the court would need to conclude that the sentence he received was “shockingly high.” Defendant argued that his sentence meets that standard because, inter alia, he had a difficult upbringing, completed many rehabilitative program hours while in prison, and does not have a lengthy history of violence. The court explained that these facts weigh in Defendant’s favor and likely were part of the district court’s reasons for not sentencing Defendant to a 70-month imprisonment term as the government requested and as Defendant received when he was convicted of the same offense in 2005. However, they are not strong enough to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion when sentencing Defendant to a 48-month imprisonment term. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not commit any plain procedural error when imposing Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

In the months following the 2020 presidential election, Defendant-Appellant threatened prominent elected officials in several posts on various social media platforms. A jury convicted Defendant of one count of threatening to assault and murder members of Congress. The district court sentenced Defendant to a prison term of nineteen months. On appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, a jury instruction, the partial closure of the courtroom due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and his sentence.The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the constitutional fact doctrine’s requirement that courts “determine for themselves whether the fact-finder appropriately applied First Amendment law to the facts” is inapplicable where, as here, the First Amendment is not implicated. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction.   Defendant also argued that the district court violated his right to a public trial by excluding his father from the courtroom during the trial. The court explained that the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants in a criminal prosecution the right to a public trial. However, the court reasoned as a general matter, courts may constitutionally close a courtroom under certain circumstances. Applying the relevant four-part test, the court found that the district court did not plainly err by excluding Defendant’s father from the trial courtroom.   Defendant also challenged the district court’s sentence on the ground that it improperly considered a rehabilitative purpose in sentencing him to prison. The court explained that in sentencing Defendant, the district court did not impermissibly consider rehabilitation. Rather, it considered the factors prescribed by 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) View "United States v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants, nineteen children in New York City’s foster care system, filed suit alleging “systemic deficiencies” in the administration of the City’s foster care system in violation of federal and state law. The named Plaintiffs moved to represent a class of all children who are now or will be in the foster care custody of the Commissioner of New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services and two subclasses. As remedies, they sought injunctive and declaratory relief to redress alleged class-wide injuries caused by deficiencies in the City’s administration—and the New York State Office of Children and Family Services’ oversight—of foster care. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its analysis of the commonality and typicality requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).   The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying class certification and remanded. The court held that the district court erred in its analysis of commonality and typicality under Rule 23. The court explained that the district court did not determine whether commonality and typicality exist with respect to each of Plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, it concluded that commonality was lacking as to all alleged harms because “Plaintiffs’ allegations do not flow from unitary, non-discretionary policies.” The court held that this approach was legal error requiring remand. Further, the court wrote that here, the district court largely relied upon its commonality analysis to support its finding that typicality was not satisfied. Thus, the deficiencies identified in its commonality inquiry can also be found in its handling of typicality. View "Elisa W. v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are two couples, both engaged to be married when they filed suit and a New York-based minister. Together, the individuals brought a constitutional challenge to state COVID-19 regulations that limited to fifty the number of attendees at social gatherings. After the expedited briefing, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction just forty-five minutes before the start time of the first of the two scheduled weddings. The first of the couples married in their planned ceremony and held their wedding celebration involving over 100 guests. A Second Circuit judge issued a temporary administrative stay of the district court’s order. A separate panel later dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the district court’s order after the second couple announced that, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, they no longer planned to hold a wedding. All five Plaintiffs then sought an award of attorney’s fees in the district court. The district court denied their motion.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here, Plaintiffs managed to secure a preliminary injunction with just forty-five minutes to spare after an abbreviated briefing schedule. The court further wrote that their initial success was fleeting: Defendants succeeded in obtaining a stay of the injunction from the court within two weeks of its issuance, and the district court’s order was later vacated after Plaintiffs intentionally mooted their claims during the pendency of Defendants’ appeal. The preliminary injunction in this case does not support a determination that Plaintiffs are prevailing parties eligible for attorney’s fees under Section 1988. View "DiMartile v. Hochul" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, several family members of a United States citizen killed in an overseas terrorist attack, appealed from the district court’s judgment dismissing their claims against the Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”) and the Palestinian Authority (“PA”) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Government, as intervenor in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 2403(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(c), also appealed from that judgment. On appeal, both Plaintiffs and the Government argued that the district court erred in finding unconstitutional the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (“PSJVTA”), the statute on which Plaintiffs relied to allege personal jurisdiction over Defendants.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the PSJVTA specifically provides that the PLO and the PA “shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction” in any civil action pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2333, irrespective of “the date of the occurrence of the act of international terrorism” at issue, upon engaging in certain forms of post-enactment conduct, namely (1) making payments, directly or indirectly, to the designees or families of incarcerated or deceased terrorists, respectively, whose acts of terror injured or killed a United States national, or (2) undertaking any activities within the United States, subject to a handful of exceptions. Thus, the court concluded that the PSJVTA’s “deemed consent” provision is inconsistent with the dictates of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. View "Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization" on Justia Law