Congestion toll program for NYC is legal

 The State of New York in 2019 implemented congestion pricing, where drivers have to pay a toll for each vehicle entering Manhattan below 60th Street (except for the FDR Drive and the West Side Highway). Suburban counties in upstate New York challenged this in court, arguing that it unfairly impacts residents from Orange and Rockland Counties. The Court of Appeals finds the congestion pricing thing is legal.

The case is County of Rockland v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, issued on July 13. Orange County asserts a right to travel claim under the Constitution. Such a principle exists, though the Constitution does not explicitly say it. As the Second Circuit (Calabresi, Park and Merriam) notes, the source of this right "has proved elusive," but we infer it from various constitutional provisions, like the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause. But in the end, "the right to migrate is firmly established."

That does not mean Orange County can proceed with the case, the Court of Appeals holds. Cases have long held that toll charges do not violate the right to travel if the toll is based on a fair approximation of state facilities (like a bridge or highways), it is not excessive, and it does not discriminate against interstate commerce. That test is from Northwest Airlines v. County of Kent, a Supreme Court case from 1994.

Orange County agrees the toll does not discriminate against interstate commerce, but its argument that the toll is not based on a fair approximation of the use of state facilities fails, as the toll proceeds are not required to be used in a specific way in order to benefit the toll-payers. The Court finds the toll "aims to benefit all toll payers by reducing traffic congestion" in that part of New York City. Nor is the toll excessive in relation to its benefits, as it does reduce traffic congestion. 

The equal protection challenge also fails, under the "rational basis" test, which says a government program that distinguishes between different people is legal if there is any rational justification for it. Really, anything goes under the rational basis test. The rational basis is that the money goes toward capital funding for mass transit, including subways, and to protect public health, presumably from too much traffic and pollution. As these are legitimate government interests, the equal protection challenge is rejected. 

Union worker wins disability discrimination appeal

The Second Circuit has reinstated a disability discrimination claim, holding the jury may find that an employer denied the plaintiff a reasonable accommodation necessitated by a serious vein condition that made it painful for him to complete his driving assignments without a modification to his work schedule. This ruling highlights a little-known principle under the ADA: the plaintiff's accommodation may entail placing him into someone else's position if that remedy aligns with the usual company practice.

The case is Raymond v. 1199WEIU National Benefit Fund, issued on July 23. Plaintiff worked for a labor union, driving around the New York City metropolitan area educating union members about union pensions and benefits. But due to his vein condition, plaintiff's doctor said he could not sit for more than 30 minutes at a time, prompting defendant to remove from his service area the four facilities that were furthest away from plaintiff's home, but still requiring plaintiff to drive more than 30 minutes to other facilities. The district court dismissed the case on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals (Sack, Perez and Preska [D.J.]) brings the case back.

The Second Circuit notes that an accommodation must be "effective" even if it is not perfect. While the district court held in granting summary judgment for the union that its response to the doctor's note sufficed under the ADA because the union took action to reduce the plaintiff's workload, the Second Circuit says this was the wrong analysis. It is not enough that the employer took some action to assist the plaintiff; the employer must take effective action. In the end, the accommodation must allow the plaintiff to perform his essential job functions. The Circuit notes that it is often up to the jury to decide if the employer's accommodation was sufficiently effect to satisfy the ADA. 

Plaintiff's case is reinstated on this issue for several reasons. First, while the district court held the driving assignment requested by plaintiff to accommodate his disability -- known as Area J -- was not plausible because it was not materially different from the employer's accommodation of removing the four farthest facilities from plaintiff's assignment, "there is evidence in the record supporting an inference that Area J requires less driving," at least based on the maps in the record. This is the kind of factual detail that may get you a trial in an ADA claim. 

Moreover, despite defendant's claim that plaintiff was actually requesting that the union create a new position to accommodate his disability (the law generally does not require the employer to create a new position for that purpose), the jury may find that plaintiff was not actually asking management to do that. Instead, the record supports the inference that he was instead only requesting an new assignment while keeping his old job title. The ADA does not even define "position" or "assignment." 

More interestingly, the Court holds that even the position that plaintiff requested was already filled (the ADA does not normally require the employer to bump someone out of their position to accommodate the plaintiff), if company practice allowed for this kind of personnel management, then the accommodation may be reasonable. In other words, "if NBF frequently shuffles employees into non-vacant positions, then Raymond's reassignment might be a plausible accommodation." The only authority for this holding is a Supreme Court ruling, U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002), which held that while a requested accommodation may be unreasonable where it requires an employer to bypass its seniority system, that same accommodation may be reasonable if the employer frequently ignores the seniority system such that “one more departure . . . will not likely make a difference.”

Disability discrimination case is reinstated on appeal

The Court of Appeals has reinstated a disability discrimination claim against a New York City agency, holding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleges the City failed to accommodate his disability. But plaintiff loses his appeal to the extent he asserted a retaliation claim under federal and city law.

The case is Cangro v. New York City Department of Finance, issued on July 24. I will start with the retaliation claim. 

Plaintiff alleges that, after he complained to the EEOC about disability discrimination, the City retaliated by telling him that he was being investigated over his requests for disability discrimination and by denying him a promotion. The problem with the first allegation -- being advised that the City was investigating him -- is that there was no actual investigation and a City official apologized for telling him otherwise, and that it was apparently just a "rumor." While plaintiff claimed the phantom investigation was distressing and that it was intended to intimidate him, the Second Circuit says this was not an adverse action under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which relaxed the adverse action test in holding the plaintiff need only assert "some harm" as opposed to a "material" harm, which was the Second Circuit's test for decades. But even under Muldrow, reporting a rumor to the plaintiff about an investigation is not enough to proceed with the lawsuit.

Plaintiff also asserts retaliation in the form of a promotion denial. If true, that's an adverse action under Muldrow. But not for plaintiff. The problem is the timing of the promotion denial. The Court of Appeals reasons it this way: "the intervals between the 2024denial of a promotion for Cangro and the two acts of Cangro for which the PSAC asserts NYCDOF was retaliating -- i.e., 11 months after his receipt of a right-to-sue letter and more than 22 months after his request for an accommodation--were too long to support any reasonable inference that Cangro was denied a promotion in retaliation for either of his acts." Timing may support a retaliation claim, but the plaintiff needs a tighter fit in a circumstantial evidence case like this. And, while plaintiff argues that defendant's reason for the promotion denial -- the lack of financial resources -- cannot be the real reason, that factual argument is unsubstantiated.  

The good news for plaintiff is the Court of Appeals (Lohier, Kearse and Park) finds he asserts a claim for failure to accommodate his disability, multiple respiratory conditions that informed his request to work remotely from home, as the commute to and from work through public transportation affected his breathing even when he wore a mask, and because his office did not have proper ventilation.  Ultimately, plaintiff's request was denied and he asserts the City did not participate in the necessary interactive process intended to work out an acceptable accommodation.

The district court held that plaintiff fails to assert a claim because he did not sufficiently argue that his proposed accommodation would allow him to perform his essential job functions. If the accommodation still does not allow the plaintiff to perform essential job duties, then it is not a reasonable accommodation. The Second Circuit reverses, and the case will proceed to discovery, for three reasons:

First, the complaint asserts that plaintiff was able to perform essential job duties while working from home over a two year period from 2020 through 2022, the Covid-19 era. Also, even after other workers were required to return to the office when the pandemic subsided, plaintiff was still able to work from home two days per week. And third, "when Cangro requested the accommodation of working some days from his him and some days in [the agency's] Staten Island office, 'Mr. Cangro's request was supported by his manager.'" That support helps plaintiff's claim. The Court explains it this way:

the word "supported" itself, in this context, is somewhat conclusory rather than factually descriptive. But at this early stage in the litigation, drawing all inferences in Cangro's favor, a manifestation of support by Cangro's manager for the requested accommodation supports the assertion that Cangro could, with that accommodation, perform the requirements of his job. 

This holding is good for plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals held the trial court held the plaintiff to stringent pleading requirements that fall outside the Iqbal/Twombly particularly test. And, the allegation that plaintiff was able to work from home for two years without incident suggests his subsequent accommodation request may have been reasonable, especially since his manager was on board with that request. 

Fourth Department sustains $500,000 retaliation verdict

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, has sustained a retaliation verdict in favor of a state corrections employee who was disciplined and sent off to work in Siberia after he spoke out on malfeasance at the department.

The case is Montgtari v. State of New York, issued on July 24. I briefed the appeal. A.J. Bosman, who also tried the case, argued the appeal. 

Plaintiff was a Captain of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and a Deputy Chief of the Sex Crimes Unit (SCU) of the Office of Special Investigations. When plaintiff became the Deputy Chief, he reported overtime abuses and failure to properly investigate allegations concerning sex crimes and/or harassment. He claimed that, in retaliation for this speech, he next suffered harassment, including an administrative suspension, disciplinary charges based on false and manufactured charges, and a disciplinary suspension. After a Civil Service Law § 75 hearing, a hearing officer found that plaintiff was responsible for speeding on the Thruway, but otherwise found that all remaining charges were not sustained. Others in the department would also speed on the Thruway on company time but suffered no punishment.

Although the Hearing Officer recommended that plaintiff be restored to his position of Deputy Chief of the SCU, Annucci reassigned plaintiff to a correction facility that was more than three hours from plaintiff's residence. 

Thew jury returned verdicts in plaintiff's favor on the equal protection and First Amendment claims. The First Amendment verdict is sustained because the complaint asserts that plaintiff spoke on matters of public concern. The equal protection rationale is more complicated. The Fourth Department notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that government employees cannot bring "class-of-one" plaintiffs in the equal protection contest. That was the Engquist case from 2008. Class-of-one claims involve the plaintiff arguing they suffered governmental abuse or misconduct so awful that the plaintiff does not need to show he belongs to a protected class of individuals; hence the class-of-one. But there is a split in the Second Circuit on whether government employees can pursue selective enforcement claims, where you are singled out while the government looks the way for other wrongdoers. The Fourth Department adopts the reasoning in cases holding that you can bring such a lawsuit, reasoning:

We note that the Second Circuit has left open that question (see Hu v City of New York, 927 F3d 81, 100 n 5 [2d Cir 2019]) and that there is a split of authority in the district courts, as the parties here recognize (see Alaei v State Univ. of New York at Albany, 2024 WL 2941735, *15 [ND NY, June 11, 2024, No. 1:21-cv-00377(BKS/TWD)]). We are persuaded by the reasoning in Airday v City of New York (2020 WL 4015770, *2-6 [SD NY, July 16, 2020, No. 14-CV-8065 (VEC)]) that selective-enforcement claims survive after Engquist.

Defendants -- some of them the highest ranking officials in the New York correctional system -- also invoked qualified immunity. While they waived that (and other) arguments by not asserting them at trial, even if preserved, that objection fails because the Second Circuit held in 1980 that malice-based selective enforcement claims may be brought under the Equal Protection Clause making this principle clearly-established for qualified immunity purposes. 

 

Circuit reaffirms no appeal from the denial of a Rule 59 "weight of the evidence" motion

This disability discrimination case went to trial, but the plaintiff lost and his former employer won. Post-trial, plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59, arguing that the verdict in defendant's favor was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied that motion, so plaintiff appeals. Except that plaintiff has a problem: the Second Circuit, at least in this instance, is the problem.

The case is Raymond v. 1199 SEIU, issued on July 23. There are many ways to challenge an adverse verdict. The most common method is to argue post-trial that the evidence is so overwhelming that the case should not have even reached the jury. Defendants often make that argument in challenging the verdict as a whole. That's a motion under Rule 50 for judgment as a matter of law. The losing side can also move for a new trial under Rule 59, claiming the verdict was agains the weight of the evidence. That motion is rarely granted and turns on the trial court''s judgment that there just was not enough evidence for the winning side to prevail and we are going to have a do-over.

If the trial court denies the Rule 59 "weight of the evidence" motion, the next stop is the Court of Appeals. But here is the problem. Under Second Circuit law, if the trial court sets aside the verdict under Rule 59, that order can be appealed. If the trial court denies the Rule 59 "weight of the evidence" motion, that ruling cannot be appealed. 

All the other circuit courts allow you to appeal from the denial of a such a motion. But not the Second Circuit. Judge Sack notes the anomaly posed by this distinction:

the reviewability of a Rule 59(a) weight-of-the-evidence decision depends on the outcome of the district judge’s decision: If the district judge overturns the jury verdict on weight-of-the-evidence grounds, it is reviewable; if the judge upholds a jury verdict over a losing party’s motion that the verdict contravenes the weight of the evidence, that decision is not reviewable. That is, if a district court denies a Rule 59(a) motion to vacate a verdict, we cannot review that denial.

Every so often, however, the Second Circuit says that such motions under Rule 59 are appealable. But then a different panel will hold otherwise. Judge Sack notes that anomaly as well:

Our caselaw on this issue is somewhat confounding. Just last year, we concluded that there is “ambiguity in our precedents” regarding whether a district court’s denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds is reviewable. See Ortiz v. Stambach, 137 F.4th 48, 71 (2d Cir. 2025) (collecting cases). We doubt, though, that our precedents can be viewed that way. Instead, we conclude that our precedents firmly establish that such a denial is not reviewable on appeal. 

In this ruling, the panel (Sack, Perez and Preska [D.J.]) holds firm on the rule that you cannot appeal from the denial of a Rule 59 "weight of the evidence" motion, holding that the Court therefore has no appellate jurisdiction over this portion of plaintiff's appeal. Judge Sack says that's the rule in the Second Circuit, and the only way it's going to change is if the Supreme Court or an en band panel of the Second Circuit directs otherwise. The verdict on the disability discrimination verdict stands. 

 

Excessive force verdict for the police is upheld on appeal

The optimism associated with starting a trial will collapse when the jury returns an unfavorable verdict. When that happens, we think about the appeal, and a new round of optimism kicks in. But it is quite difficult to overturn a verdict, particularly on factual grounds, as the Court of Appeals will defer to the jury's credibility assessments. That is the problem for plaintiff in this appeal.

The case is Chapdelaine v. Desjardin, issued on July 2. This is an excessive force claim where plaintiff alleges the police used too much force and authority in restraining her after they came to the house upon a complaint that plaintiff had assaulted an elderly victim, a friend of the family. Plaintiff alleged the police knocked her to the ground while trying to place her in handcuffs. 

Excessive force claim are difficult to resolve on the papers alone, as the parties often provide conflicting accounts, requiring a jury trial. This is one of those cases, and the jury ruled in favor of the police. But that's why we have the Court of Appeals: the losing side can argue that the evidence was so overwhelming in their favor that the jury had no choice but to rule for them. But while that argument is available to you, that argument is difficult to win.

The jury is tasked with deciding who is telling the truth. There are no real legal standards guiding how to assess credibility, thought the judge will instruction the jury on this point in the jury instructions, ultimately telling the jury to use their common sense and to pay attention to consistencies and inconsistencies and facial expressions on the witness stand. The jury decides who is telling the truth, not the judge.

The Second Circuit (Chin, Lee and Robinson) finds the jury was able to find for defendants. It did not have to find for them, but it did so, and it had a basis to do so in concluding that plaintiff had charged the police, who knew that plaintiff had previously threatened others with weapons, and that plaintiff let herself fall to the ground and her cries were "theatrical for the cameras." I am sure plaintiff strongly disputes this version of events, but the jury was free to reach those conclusions. The verdict is affirmed.  

No malicious prosecution claim where criminal charges were dismissed in a compromise

This police misconduct lawsuit alleges that plaintiff was falsely arrested in a domestic dispute on Thanksgiving Day in 2018. It all happened in Connecticut. The complainant said that plaintiff pushed a houseguest to the floor. When the police showed up, plaintiff got into an argument with the officer, who smacked plaintiff's hand away when she raised her hand, and plaintiff fell to the ground, where she was handcuffed. Plaintiff was arrested for assault of an elderly victim but the charges were ultimately dismissed. Judgment for the police.

The case is Chapdelaine v. Desjardin, decided on July 2. Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim was dismissed on summary judgment. The argument on appeal was that if the police lacked probable cause to arrest, then they may be liable for malicious prosecution. You can bring such a claim if the arrest was in fact lacking in probable cause and the case got dismissed without a conviction but -- and this is crucial -- cases hold that if the case was dismissed or withdrawn as a result of a calculated decision based on a compromise, then there is no malicious prosecution claim. When you have such a compromise, then it's not a true dismissal suggesting the plaintiff was innocent of the charge. 

In other words, the underlying criminal charge must have ended favorably for the plaintiff. That wrinkle on malicious prosecution claims knocks out plaintiff's claim because the charges against her were dismissed as a result of a compromise involving the plaintiff attending mental health treatment in exchange for the charges being dismissed. The Second Circuit reasons it this way:

The underlying state criminal matter was pending against Chapdelaine for nearly five years and the court's dismissal of the charges following her completion of a one-day diversionary program reflects a court-ordered compromise. The Connecticut Superior Court judge explained on the record that -- based on the five-year length of the case without resolution and Chapdelaine's efforts to attend mental health treatment during the pendency of the case -- the criminal charges would be dismissed contingent upon Chapdelaine's agreement to and completion of a one-day supervised diversionary program. She indeed agreed to the compromise and completed the program. 

Under these circumstances, the dismissal of Chapdelaine's criminal charges was not a favorable termination for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim. The leading case on this issue is the recent Carruthers v. Colton (2025), which held that proceedings ending in a compromise, and in particular plea dispositions, are not really the kind of "favorable termination" that allow you to sue for malicious prosecution.  

Second Circuit sustains FLSA verdict

The Court of Appeals has sustained a bench verdict in favor of FLSA wage-and-hour plaintiffs who claimed their employer denied them proper wages and then retaliated against them after they objected to this illegal treatment.

The case is Vazquez v. 142 Knickerbocker Enterprises, a summary order issued on July 8. I assisted in briefing the appeal. The case was brought by Catholic Migration Services and Main Street Legal Services, operated by CUNY Law School, my almer mater. 

The plaintiffs worked at a car wash in Queens. On the wages claim, the Court says, "During the relevant period—November 2007 through April 2014—the applicable minimum wage was $7.15 per hour. See NYLL § 652(1). On July 24, 2009, the minimum wage increased to $7.25 per hour. On December 31, 2013, it increased to $8.00 per hour. State law requires employers to pay employees one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for all hours exceeding 40 per week. The evidence at trial supported the conclusion of the district court that [defendant] Azoulay regularly underpaid the plaintiffs."

Plaintiffs proved their case in part through their own testimony, since Defendants' payroll records were incomplete. While management is required to maintain good records, when they don't the trial courts can look elsewhere to prove the plaintiff's earnings. The Court (Lynch, Menashi and Rakoff [D.J.]) further found that management appropriated the plaintiffs' tips. We call that tip-stealing.

We also have a retaliation claim, not uncommon in FLSA and State Labor Law claims. After the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit, Azoulay "wrote to the court indicating that he had reported the plaintiffs to the IRS, the [Social Security Administration], the FBI, and the New York Attorney General’s office for criminal violations. On appeal, Azoulay argues that his actions were not retaliatory but a 'reasonable attempt to meet legal obligations during litigation.'" You read that correctly, the defendant admitted this retaliation to the court, While defendant tried to explain away his actions, the trial court was not obligated to accept that defense, and the trial court's findings on whether defendants' actions were retaliatory will not be upset on appeal unless that finding is completely off-the-wall. Since federal judges issue rulings that usually find support in the record or resolve disputed factual inferences, the retaliation verdict is sustained.

What the Supreme Court did in the transgender athletics case

The Supreme Court has ruled that the states may prevent transgender girls from competing with other girls on the soccer, basketball and other teams. This ruling interprets Title IX (the educational discrimination statute) and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The case is West Virginia v. BPJ, issued on June 30. The transgender/sports question has found its way into the culture wars. It used to be gay rights, but those issues -- at least in the marriage and employment context -- are settled. The Court ruled in 2015 that the Equal Protection Clause requires the states to recognize same-sex marriage, and it ruled in 2020 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to fire gay and transgender employees. 

But Title IX sports is a different issue, the Court says, because when the statute was enacted in 1972 and then amended over the years, Congress intended that the sex assigned at birth is your sex for purposes of high school sports. In addition, says Justice Kavanaugh writing for the majority, regulations issued under Title IX recognize that biological differences between men and women will have an effect on competitiveness and safety if we are talking about contact sports. As for safety, consider the injury risks if we allow transgender girls compete in girls' sports. As for competitiveness, Kavanaugh says, consider how sports is a zero-sum game, where roster spots are finite and a biological male may take the place of someone else on the girls' soccer team.

The equal protection argument carries a different analysis, but the same result. Under equal protection principles, discrimination on the basis of sex is only legal if the government advances an important justification for the discrimination, and the policy in placed is substantially related to that legitimate interest. We call that "intermediate scrutiny." As opposed to "strict scrutiny" in reviewing racial distinctions created by statute or regulations. The Court says that student safety and competitive fairness principles represent important governmental interests, at least when it comes to high school sports. And the refusal to allow transgender girls to play on the girls' teams is substantially related to that governmental interest. May sex-based classifications fails under intermediate scrutiny, but not this one. Kavanaugh positions himself as an authority on youth sports, and recall he coached girls' basketball before he joined the Supreme Court. He recognizes the joys and anguish of high school sports and says that "anyone who thinks that [soccer, basketball, field hockey, lacrosse, and ice hockey] are not contact sports has not witnessed a game recently." Take it from Kavanaugh, these sports are not for the faint of heart.

A brief concurrence from Justice Thomas makes his clear his skepticism of all the issues relating to transgender status, stating that "'gender dysphoria' is a mutable mental state that is the object of psychiatric treatment," and that "Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they think they are." To play around with the definitions for boys and girls and man and woman is to "obscure reality" and to "lie to the public and cease to treat or fellow citizens 'as equals.'" It's a "no" from Justice Thomas on this issue.

Justice Sotomayer dissents on the equal protection issue, claiming the majority is jumping the gun and should have remanded this case for more fact-finding on the legal and factual issues. 

This litigation implicates deeply sensitive, contentious, and evolving issues. These circumstances demand exercising judicial restraint, not rushing to answer conclusively difficult questions without sufficient evidentiary development. In opting otherwise, the majority extends great sympathy to those it favors: the young cisgender girls and women who play sports. I share that sympathy. Playing sports can lead to benefits that are immeasurable, and many are understandably invested in ensuring that competition stays fair and safe. Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent. 

 

What the Supreme Court did in the birthright citizenship case

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that everyone born in the United States -- even if their parents are not authorized to be in this country -- are American citizens. This ruling resolves a contentious political and legal debate that accelerated when Donald Trump became President and said that the children of "illegal" immigrants are not citizens.

The case is Trump v. Barbara, issued on June 30. The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted following the Civil War, states as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." What does this mean? For the longest time, it was assumed that if you are born here, no matter who your parents are (with few exceptions, such if your parents are diplomats), then you are a citizen. But many legal issues that we thought were settled are not settled. For instance, the Second Amendment lie dormant for decades until the Supreme Court clarified in 2008 that it protects an individual right of gun ownership. 

Chief Justice Roberts writes for the 6-3 majority, though bear in mind that Justice Kavanaugh rules in favor of citizenship but not based on his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment but a federal statute. So, on the constitutional issue, this is a 5-4 ruling, remarkably close for an issue that most of us took for granted until Trump issued an Executive Order on January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, stating that the children of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States do not qualify for citizenship.

Roberts reviews the historical record and finds that under English common law (including case law and related legal precedents), children "born within the [sovereign's] dominions owed a natural "allegiance" to the sovereign who protected them at birth. This was the case regardless of how "momentous and uncertain" their presence. These children were "natural born subjects" under the English crown. As Roberts sees it, "this view crossed the Atlantic with the colonists -- and was adopted with little fanfare after the [American] Revolution, as "subjects' of the sovereign became 'citizens' of the States." This was true in all 13 original states. Scholarship in 1838 held that by "the doctrine of natural allegiance," all "who were born within the jurisdiction of a State" were citizens. 

Moreover, Roberts observed, once immigrants started coming to the United States after its founding, emigres from the Old World were "assured that their children would be American citizens by birth alone." A seminal case from New York in 1844 held as such. This principle was colorblind, notwithstanding the Dred Scott decision in 1857 that said Blacks are not American citizens; that ruling was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Citizenship Clause, set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment, "mirrored the common law's criteria for citizenship." 

What about the "subject to the jurisdiction" language in the Citizenship Clause? That language is not clear on its face and provides an opening for opponents to argue that many foreigners, who came to the U.S. without authorization, cannot give birth to citizens here. As Roberts sees it, under Nineteenth Century dictionary definitions (a common source for the Supreme Court in divining the meaning of statutes and constitutional provisions), "to be 'subject to' the jurisdiction of the United States ... is to 'live under' its 'dominion.'" He adds, "The Citizenship Clause uses jurisdiction in its ordinary sense -- referring to the power of the United States to govern those within its territory." That would necessarily include so-called "illegal" immigrants and others here temporarily.   

Justice Thomas dissents, primarily arguing that the Citizenship Clause was only intended to benefit the newly-freed slaves. Justice Alito writes in dissent that "the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country," Alito then offers an extensive history of "illegal" immigration in the United States, particularly from the 1970s onward, concluding that "the Court's interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally," as "[i]mmigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available," and that other than Canada, "the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship." Alito concludes that the majority ruling is "a mistake that will seriously affect the country's future." 

National origin discrimination claim fails despite manager's impatience with plaintiff's accent

The Court of Appeals has held that an employee with a strong foreign accent cannot sue for wrongful termination after her supervisor angrily complained that he could not understand her and ultimately terminated her employment.

The case is Matthew v. JP Morgan Chase, a summary order issued on June 30. I briefed and argued the appeal. 

This case was dismissed on a Rule 12 motion, so the facts in the Complaint, along with the plaintiff's affidavit, stated as follows: "Matthew alleged that her supervisor, district manager John Wolf,
'complained that he couldn’t understand anything [Matthew] was saying because of [her] accent,' but that her other supervisors did not have similar complaints." Plaintiff alleged that Wolf “informed [her], in nearly every single conversation that [they] had, both in person and over the phone, that he could not understand [Matthew] because of [her] Trinidadian accent,” and that “Wolf expressed clear anger and annoyance to [Matthew] that [she] spoke with an accent.”

Since Wolf played a role in plaintiff's termination, she sued for national origin discrimination. The district court and the Court of Appeals (Lynch, Menashi and Bianco) affirms, and the case is over. We argued that Wolf's hostility was enough to assert a plausible discrimination claim, especially since other managers did not give plaintiff a hard time over had accent. The Court of Appeals disagrees, reasoning as follows:

While mistreatment related to accents can have “a nexus to” national-origin discrimination, Zheng-Smith v. Nassau Health Care Corp., 2021 WL 4097316, at *3 (2d Cir. Sept. 9, 2021) (summary order), allegations concerning the former must still “allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that” the alleged mistreatment was motivated by invidious discrimination. Construed liberally, the allegations here suggest, at best, that Wolf had difficulty understanding Matthew because of her accent on multiple occasions and was consequently angry or annoyed at Matthew due to that difficulty. As the district court noted, she does not allege that he mimicked or mocked her or that he used derogatory words or phrases during these conversations. Nor has Matthew “demonstrate[d] circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination by alleging that [s]he was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees.”

The Second Circuit has not yet published a precedential ruling on when hostility or anger toward the plaintiff's accent is enough to support a discrimination claim. This ruling suggests the plaintiff cannot simply allege that a manager fixated on the plaintiff's accent, even if other managers did not have a problem with it.

Threat to impose costs under arbitration clause may be retaliatory

The Appellate Division holds that an employer violates the New York State Human Rights Law when it threatens a discrimination plaintiff that his SDHR charge must be litigated in arbitration and that, if the plaintiff does not pursue that route, he may be subject to costs and attorneys' fees.

The case is In the Matter of Charter Communications v. Eisen, a Fourth Department ruling issued on June 26. This case went to an evidentiary hearing at the SDHR, which ruled in the plaintiff's favor, awarding him $7,500 for pain and suffering and imposing a $30,000 fine on the employer. Charter appealed this ruling to the Fourth Department, which sides with the SDHR and upholds the finding of liability and damages, as well as the fine.

Here are the facts:

After he was fired from his employment with petitioner, complainant filed a complaint with SDHR alleging age discrimination. Petitioner responded by sending a letter to complainant in September 2019 stating that, because of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties, complainant could not pursue his claim against petitioner through a court action. Petitioner advised complainant to "be aware" that the arbitration agreement entitled petitioner to costs and fees, including attorneys' fees, incurred if petitioner was forced to seek court action to compel complainant to resolve his dispute through arbitration instead of litigation. Petitioner then filed the instant complaint alleging age discrimination and retaliation. Thereafter, while the complaint was pending, petitioner sent complainant two additional letters in June 2020 and March 2021 asking complainant to withdraw his complaint with SDHR because of the arbitration agreement.

It is not uncommon for corporate defendants to tell the plaintiff that the claim falls within the arbitration clause. What probably made the difference was Charter's threat that plaintiff might have to pay costs and attorneys' fees if he did not proceed to arbitration. Under the legal standard, such threats "could have dissuaded a reasonable person from" pursuing the discrimination complaint.   

Supreme Court strikes down another gun regulation

The Supreme Court has issued another Second Amendment ruling, finding that Hawaii cannot enforce a law that prevents gun-owners from entering private property with their guns without the property owner's express authorization. 

The case is Wolford v. Lopez, issued on June 25. This is another 6-3 ruling that applies the Bruen decision, issued by the Court in 2022, and which makes it much more difficult to enact and enforce gun laws. Under Bruen, gun laws are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment unless the government can prove there is a historical analogue the law dating to the country's founding. This is a complex constitutional formula, and may be the most "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution we've seen from the Supreme Court. Bruen requires that lawyers and judges review laws dating to the Eighteenth Century in determining if today's laws comport with laws that were in place back in 1791.

Justice Alito says the Hawaii law "departs sharply from the standard common law rule on access to private property held open to the public. Under that rule, everyone, including those lawfully carrying firearms, may enter unless expressly prohibited from doing so. By contrast, under the new Hawaii law, no one carrying a firearm may enter without the property owner's express authorization. The effect of the new rule is to impose severe restrictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the State's rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit."

The majority considers the practical application of the Hawaii rule: when Johnny-citizen leaves the house in the morning, he must   

When these permit holders leave home in the morning, not only must they take care to avoid all the territory where the possession of a gun is prohibited outright, but they may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, coffee shops, drug stores, grocery stores, “big box” stores, home improvement stores, barber shops or hair salons, dry cleaners, and laundromats. This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives. 

In dissent, writing for the three Democratic-appointed Justices, Justice Jackson sees the case very differently. "To hear the majority tell it, Hawaii’s law is a blatant attempt to end-run our Second Amendment precedents. But the statute at issue does no such thing. Instead, it fairly applies a first principle of property law—the right to exclude—and does no harm to the Second Amendment." 

 

NY Court of Appeals upholds mandatory retirement age for state judges

The New York Court of Appeals holds that the state's mandatory retirement age for judges -- 70 years -- is constitutional. The argument was that the retirement age -- in place since 1777 -- gets the kibosh due tot the recently-enacted Equal Rights Amendment adopted in 2024. The Court of Appeals disagrees.

The case is Miller v. State of New York, issued on June 18. The Court observes that the ERA does not specifically address the mandatory retirement, which is a strike against the plaintiffs' argument. The Court concludes that the ERA was never intended to repeal the age-limit. We got some classic statutory construction in support of this holding. Here is the summary:

The voters have spoken clearly since 1777 that judges may serve until they reach the constitutional age of retirement. That age limit has never been eliminated. For more than two centuries, the voters only modified the age limit, first during the Reconstruction era by raising the age to 70, and again in 1961, when the voters approved a certification process for certain judges and justices to serve to age 76. That limit has been fixed since then, with no ballot initiative to eliminate it and a failed effort in 2013 to raise the age to 80. The retirement age is part of New York's constitutional design. The State's voters, Legislature, members of the bench, and judicial candidates have understood that judicial service is limited in this specific way. Article I, § 11, as amended by the ERA, did not repeal article VI, § 25 (b). The retirement mandate stands. 

Not that I would expect anything less from the New York Court of Appeals, but this ruling represents remarkable self-restraint. The judges on this Court are directly affected by the retirement age, and as they grow older, they must realize that 70 is no barrier to effective judging. There are federal judges who sit on the bench through their 80's and 90's. Seventy is not what it used to be.  

Second Department takes a strong stand on AI hallucinations

The Appellate Division has imposed $11,000 in sanctions against a lawyer and his firm for submitting an appellate brief containing fake case citations, what the legal world now calls hallucinations. This appears to be the Second Department's most extensive discussion thus far on the practice of using artificial intelligence for legal research without double-checking the ensure the AI-generated research is finding real or imagined cases.

The case is Landberg v. City of New York, issued on June 23. Every generation has its new problems. For lawyers, its AI, which can produce research results quickly and provide case citations. The problem is that AI may either make up a non-existent case or cite a real case with holdings that do not appear in the case. What we are seeing -- from the multitude of rulings like this one -- is that some lawyers are using AI for legal research without reading the cases and determining if they are accurate or even if the cases exist. The courts have had it with AI hallucinations, and decisions are issuing nearly every day condemning the practice. Take a look at this database, updated daily.

In this personal injury case, the brief had a number of fake case citations, and the Appellate Division asked counsel about it at oral argument, offering him a 15-minute recess to figure things out. Counsel declined the invitation and "initially confirmed that the authorities within the brief came from Lexis, Westlaw, or a book, or were 'cited from a previous case,'" though "he later hypothesized that the erroneous citations may have possibly been the product of him 'over-relying' on 'other briefs' or string cites." 

This is humiliating for the lawyer, so I will keep his name out of this discussion. I guess the Second Department wants to make a statement in this case, so it details counsel's response to the order to show cause on sanctions:

[Counsel] stated that in connection with his research, he recalled "utilizing traditional legal research resources, including Westlaw, appellate briefs, publicly available sources, and other secondary materials. However, [he] also recall[ed] utilizing artificial intelligence-assisted research tools but [did] not recall which exact tool [he] used, it was one of the free ones available to the public." [Counsel]  stated that after carefully reviewing the brief, it was his "belief that the non-existent citations identified by the Court originated during the AI-assisted portion of [his] supplemental research which [he] negligently failed to verify before filing [the plaintiff's] brief with this Court." [Counsel] stated that this was a violation of the policy of the law firm, which "had made known its policy that all AI generated citations to facts and the law required personal review and confirmation by the lawyers using artificial intelligence tools."

[Counsel] further stated in his affirmation that when he appeared for oral argument and the Court asked him where the fabricated cases came from, he "should have stated that they were hallucinated by artificial intelligence. [He] was genuinely scared at the time. It felt like [his] career was on the line, and [he] was afraid to even use the words 'AI.'"  [Counsel] went on to "expla[in], not justif[y]" that he was "confused and stunned at the questioning because [he] was prepared to address the nuance of the cases [he] cited for the central legal issue as to whether the location of the accident qualified as a 'tree well' within the meaning of Administrative Code § 7-210. The cases with the wrong citations were cited for the more simple, and [he] believed to be non-questionable basic principles of Administrative Code § 7-210."

[Counsel] stated that he was "deeply embarrassed" for his error and that he "can assure this Court with every fiber in [his] body that going forward, [he] will be extremely rigorous, to verify every citation in any paper [he] ever file[s] going forward."

That's a real mea culpa, but the Court still issues a sanction. It notes that we all know about the dangers of AI research, citing to a New York Times article on the issue. The Court then says that counsel's response to questioning at oral argument was inappropriate:

when confronted about the fabricated cases cited in his brief at oral argument, [Counsel] declined the opportunity to take a 15-minute recess to discern where he had found the cases, and maintained that he had found them either on Westlaw or Lexis or in a book, a previous case, or another brief. As [Counsel] later admitted in his affirmation, he was not being candid at the time of oral argument, as he should have said that the cases were hallucinated by artificial intelligence. [Counsel] "expla[ined]" that his decision to be dishonest with the Court was due to being "scared." This may be true.

However, [Counsel]'s decision not to be honest with the Court during oral argument also demonstrated his professional immaturity, arrogance, and profound lack of respect for the judicial system.

Even after being given the opportunity to respond to the Court's concerns in writing, it appears that [Counsel] was still not completely candid. In his affirmation, [Counsel] recalled using artificial intelligence research tools in connection with his supplemental legal research, which he blamed for the three fictitious cases that were cited for what he believed to be "non-questionable basic principles" of law. However, as outlined above, the brief that [Counsel] submitted did not merely contain fictitious case citations for non-questionable principles of law. The brief also contained fabricated quotations from the Court of Appeals, which said the opposite of what the Court of Appeals has actually said about whether Administrative Code § 7-210 is to be construed liberally or strictly. 

In addition, the brief completely misrepresented what was decided or discussed in two real cases cited therein. Since "fabricated quotations from actual cases" and "misstatements of law that are not representative of what a case actually decided" are well-recognized "pitfalls posed by the use of GenAI in drafting briefs" (Matter of Julien v Arthur, ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 03308, *1-2), it appears that GenAI was used to do more than simply conduct supplemental research, as suggested by [Counsel] in his affirmation.  [Counsel] wholly failed to fulfill his obligation to review the work of GenAI to prevent the submission to this Court of a brief containing significant misrepresentations of the law.

Counsel was sanctioned $8,500 and his law firm -- where Counsel is an associate -- was sanctioned $2,500 for the AI hallucinations. You should know that the lawyers on the other side of the appeal were also grilled by the Appellate Division panel on the fake citations, and they asked counsel why they did not flag this issue writing their own briefs. These lawyers were not sanctioned, by the oral argument makes it clear that all lawyers have a duty to tell the court when their adversary is citing hallucinations.

 

Court scales back religious freedom law

The Supreme Court has held that a prisoner cannot sue prison guards for cutting off his religiously-inspired Rastafarian hair. This decision narrowly interprets the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, a religious freedom law which generally allows you to sue the government when it violates your religious rights.

The case is  Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, decided on June 23. The plaintiff wore long hair and carried around a court decision stating the prison cannot shave his head upon entry to the facility. That decision may have been good law at the time, but it does not help the plaintiff. Why? He sued under RLUIPA, which is not like other civil rights laws in that it says governmental institutions, upon accepting federal money (and most of them do) accept that money in return for consenting to answer lawsuits under the statute. If you take federal money, then you must allow for lawsuits against you. But that contract must be knowing and voluntary. 

Here is an example: in 1987, the Court said that Congress can distribute highway funds to municipalities on condition that they raise the drinking age to 21. This unusual equation arises from the statute's relationship to the Spending Clause under the Constitution. The federal government can spend money for the general welfare and may therefore attach conditions for the receipt of federal money. But, the Court rules in a 6-3 decision, that consent to lawsuits will not apply when the plaintiff is suing individual defendants, who, while working for an institution that accepts federal money, did not themselves consent to be sued. That is a narrow interpretation of RLUIPA Here is the crux of Justice Gorsuch's reasoning:

Under the Spending Clause, Congress lacks regulatory authority to impose liability on them directly and must depend instead on consent. And because they never agreed to answer suits like this one, Mr. Landor’s case cannot proceed against them any more than a breach of contract action might proceed against a defendant who never formed a contract. 

It is true that the modern Court is more receptive to religious freedom cases than ever before. But Spending Clause statutes like RLUIPA are not like other statutes that also protect religious freedom, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is not a Spending Clause statute. In recent years, the Court has been scaling back the protections of civil rights laws enacted under the Spending Clause, holding a few years ago that these statutes do not provide for pain and suffering damages.

The only way to change this is through a new law. But protecting religious freedom has been difficult in the federal world, ever since the Court scaled back the Free Exercise Clause in 1990 in Employment Division v. Smith. In response to that case, Congress passed a law to restore religious religious, but the Court struck it down and created an incomprehensible legal test to determine whether certain laws passed under the Fourteenth Amendment may survive constitutional review. These new laws ultimately led to RLUIPA, one of the few bipartisan statutes passed by our fractured Congresses in the last few decades. But the law only means what the Court says it does, and for plaintiff, it means he has no case. 

 

Supreme Court reinstates high profile child murder verdict

The Supreme Court has reinstated the criminal conviction of the man found guilty of the highly-publicized kidnapping and killing of a boy in New York City in 1979.

The case is McCarthy v. Hernandez, issued on June 22. We have a 6-3 vote, with Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissenting.

The killing of Etan Patz shocked the world at a time when crime in New York City was reaching a peak; he stopped into a bodega on his way to school and no one ever saw him again. The crime was unsolved for decades until the police arrested Pedro Herhandez, who confessed to the crime to a relative and then to the police. The problem with the police confession was that the police began asking him questions without providing his Miranda warnings ("You have the right to remain silent ..."). Once they read him his rights, Hernandez waived them and made a second confession. He gave another confession at the DA's office after waiving his Miranda rights.

At the criminal trial, the jury wanted to know what to do if they thought the pre-Miranda confession was involuntary -- should they disregard the two later videotaped confessions, where he waived his Miranda? The trial court explained that although New York law requires a jury to disregard confessions that it finds were “involuntarily made," state law does not empower a jury to assess whether a later confession is fatally tainted by an earlier, “involuntary” confession. 

The Second Circuit granted him habeas relief, determining that the state court criminal trial violated Hernandez's constitutional rights because the interrogation tactics violated Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), a splintered ruling that held that police questioning like this violates federal law. As the Supreme Court describes the Seibert ruling, "Writing for a four-Justice plurality, Justice Souter opined that the use of the tactic had undermined the protection that Miranda was designed to provide and that the confession given after the tardy Miranda warning was therefore inadmissible." 

That language from Seibert may seem to help Hernandez in this case, and as noted, the Second Circuit agreed, Not so, says a divided Supreme Court, which holds that Hernandez had no federal right to have the jury evaluate the lawfulness of his confessions after the trial court admitted them at trial. New York law may provide for that right, but the U.S. Constitution does not. Even if Seibert provides for the controlling legal standard -- and that proposition is debatable since it was a splintered ruling -- "that opinion established nothing about a jury's determination of a confession's legality," as Seibert's context was the trial court's ruling on a suppression motion, not a jury's assessment of attentuation" The Supreme Court has never applied Seibert in any other procedural context.

Since the trial court did not violate clearly-established federal law in guiding the jury on how to assess the confessions, there is no habeas corpus relief and the conviction is reinstated. 

Second Circuit reinstates racial discrimination case

The Court of Appeals has reinstated a racial discrimination lawsuit, holding that the plaintiff alleged enough facts in her complaint to plausibly assert that she was denied a promotion and then terminated from her position because of her race.

The case is Brooks v. Bright Horizons, a summary order issued on June 10. I represented the plaintiff on appeal. Keenan & Bhatia handled the case in the district court.

Plaintiff is Black, and her supervisor is white. Plaintiff alleges the white supervisor singled her out for mistreatment, as compared to her white co-workers. When plaintiff put in for a promotion for which she was qualified, someone else was chosen for the position; the selectee was not Black. According to the lawsuit, the selectee was not qualified for the position, as he lacked some of the prerequisites set forth in the job posting. When Plaintiff asked why she did not get the position, her supervisor said that she needed more experience supervising people who are "not like you." In explaining further, the supervisor mentioned an Asian-American director and another employee who is a non-Black Latina. Plaintiff was later fired. That same supervisor orchestrated her termination, claiming that plaintiff did not comply with COVID protocols, even though one of plaintiff's white subordinates who made the decision that broke the protocol was not disciplined. A white woman replaced plaintiff.

The Court of Appeals applies a settled rule in reinstating the failure-to-promote and termination claims: if the promotion is given to someone outside the protected class, and if you are fired and replaced by someone outside the protected class, that's a prima facie case, and if you plead a prima facie case, then the case cannot be dismissed. The Second Circuit more recently articulated this rule in Littlejohn v. City of New York (2015). The Court did not address whether the "not like you" comment carried a racial implication, though the Court did cite that allegation in the statement of facts.

If the cases are settled that plaintiff plead a prima facie case, then why was the case dismissed? Because some district courts, and a few Second Circuit summary orders (which are not precedential) are now holding that replacement by someone outside the protected class is not always enough to make out a prima facie case. No published Second Circuit holds as such. Here is how the Second Circuit (Nardini, Lee and Robinson) handled that issue:

The district court acknowledged our holding in Littlejohn, but relied on a subsequent summary order of this Court to conclude that we had “more recently cautioned that the succession of an employee by a person outside the protected class, standing alone, cannot give rise to a plausible inference of discrimination.” Joint App’x at 102 (citing Marcus v. Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. 661 F. App’x 29, 32 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Without more, the mere fact that an older employee was replaced by a younger one does not plausibly indicate discriminatory motive.”)). But Marcus did not—indeed could not—undermine what we held in Littlejohn. Procedurally, a summary order is nonbinding, and even a published opinion of a later panel cannot override the published opinion of an earlier panel. In any event, we discern no tension between our two decisions. In Marcus, we were addressing what we described as “skeletal pleading” in a complaint that alleged simply on “information and belief” that the plaintiff had been replaced by a younger employee, without any supporting facts—not even the purported age of the new employee. 661 F. App’x at 32-33. Brooks’ amended complaint is far more detailed and alleges specifics about differential treatment that was accorded to her and a similarly situated employee of Bright Horizons.

What we see is a principle, still unavailable in any published case, that replacement by someone outside the protected class may not be enough to avoid Rule 12 dismissal, but only if there is skeletal pleading that does not otherwise suggest an inference of discrimination. The rule in  Marcus is still the exception. The general rule guiding Iqbal pleading is to write a detailed complaint no matter what. If you've got it, plead it. 

 

Bad court reporter! Bad!

During the criminal trial, the court reporter was unable to capture substantial portions of the trial proceedings. So the stenographer instead recorded, "blah, blah, blah," "blah blah," "omitted," or undecipherable characters instead of the words actually spoken. This is what you read if you were going through jury selection, portions of the trial, jury notes and the verdict. The problem is you need a real transcript for the appeal. 

The case is People v. Meyers, issued by the New York Court of Appeals on May 26. The half-elbowed transcripts surfaced when defendant -- who was convicted of orchestrating a house fire in order to win someone's life insurance -- took up an appeal. I am sure panic ensued when the appellate lawyer realized the transcripts contained all the nonsense. Here is a sample of what the transcript looked like, when the trial judge addressed the jury:

"A trial jury is composed of 12 people. In addition to the 12 jurors, we also, blah, blah, sworn in as a trial juror will serve as the jury's foreperson. You've heard reference to the fact that the defendant was indicted by a grand jury. This is not and must not be taken guilty you, blah, blah, trial jury must consider an indictment by, blah, blah, accused of a crime. Only you as members of the trial jury can determine guilt. A defendant is presumed innocent and until you (untranscribable) find him guilty." 

You can "yada yada yada" your way through a Seinfeld plot but you can't "blah, blah, blah" you way through a criminal trial.  

The trial court held a four-day reconstruction hearing, during which the court heard testimony from the trial judge who presided over the case, the judge's law clerk, all the lawyers who handled the case, and collected notes taken from judge during trial. The hope was that the court could reconstruct what actually happened at trial besides "blah, blah, blah." 

The case reached the New York Court of Appeals on the theory that defendant deserved a new trial because he did not have a proper trial record. But the Court holds that the reconstruction hearing was adequate and other, non-stenographic evidence, was preserved, including video of defendant and his wife visiting the home right before the fire and removing bags of materials from the home, presumably the stuff that defendant did not want burned into oblivion. As for the reconstructed trial record, defendant has not shown any appealable issues relating to those portions of the trial that were not adequately recorded by the court reporter. 

Second chance for murder defendant due to potential Batson violation

At this criminal trial, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to remove a series of Black jurors from the case. The criminal defendant was convicted of capital murder but challenged the fairness of the trial due to what he claimed was the racially-motivated jury selection process. He wins in the Supreme Court.

The case is  Pitchford v. Cain, issued on May 28. Never let anyone tell you that a conservative Supreme Court does not always rule in a liberal manner. This is a 5-4 decision, with Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts voting with the three liberals.

In this case, during jury selection, the prosecutor struck four potential jurors, all of them Black. The defendant's lawyer objected on Batson grounds. Under Batson, named after a Supreme Court ruling from 1986, upon such an objection, the prosecutor has to articulate a race-neutral reason for striking the Black jurors. The judge then has to decide -- on the spot -- if that justification is a pretext, or a knowingly false reason. The prosecutor does not have a heavy burden in defending his choices, but this procedure must be followed.

Although the jury convicted the defendant of murder, yielding a 20-year sentence, the Supreme Court grants the habeas corpus petition, holding that the state courts did not reasonably apply Court precedent on this issue. Remember that habeas petitions are not granted simply because the state court did something unconstitutional during trial. The criminal defendant has to show the state court did not reasonably apply Supreme Court precedent. As Justice Gorsuch writes in dissent, "showing legal error . . . isn't enough to satisfy [the habeas statute]. Instead, a petitioner must demonstrate that no fairminded jurist could reach the state court's conclusion under this Court's precedents." So a mere constitutional violation is not enough. The habeas equation, in my view, is one of the greatest anomalies in federal law. But that's a lecture for another day.

What went wrong at the criminal trial was this: the criminal court judge said the prosecutor articulated a neutral reason for striking the Black jurors, but it did not afford defense counsel a chance to rebut the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons as pretextual. Nor did the criminal court make any findings regarding whether the prosecutor's reasons were a pretext for race discrimination. When jury selection ended, defense counsel again raised an objection, to no avail. The trial court cut him off. The defendant gets another shot at challenging the prosecutor's actions, potentially leading to a new trial with a fresh jury. Hey, everyone deserves a second chance, right?

 

 

Supreme Court narrowly interprets Federal Arbitration Act for intrastate bakery drivers

The Supreme Court last week narrowly interpreted the Federal Arbitration Clause -- which favors arbitration and usually produces court rulings for management, which does not want cases in court but instead through the private arbitration process -- to mean that certain bakery and junk food drivers cannot be forced into arbitration when management denies them a proper paycheck.

The case is Flowers Foods v. Brock, issued on May 28. Under the FAA, you cannot compel arbitration in disputes involving the "contracts of employment" of any class of workers "engaged in ... interstate commerce." Since Flowers distributes food all over the country, requiring its drivers to cross state lines, the question is whether the plaintiffs may pursue their claims in open court instead of arbitration -- which will grant you a ruling, albeit on an expedited basis with more limited discovery, no jury, and where the arbitrators' rates are often paid by the employer. See why plaintiffs don't like arbitration? They dislike arbitration so much that they will take this issue to the Supreme Court (an expensive and time-consuming process), which issues a ruling long after the arbitrator might have resolved the case once and for all.

What makes this case unique is that plaintiff did not actually cross state lines in delivering the baked goods. Instead, his "intrastate route formed a constituent part of the ... interstate journey of Flowers's goods from out-of-state bakeries to their intended destinations at retain stores." On these facts, can plaintiff still avoid arbitration under the statute? A unanimous court rules that, under the FAA, workers qualify as engaging in interstate commerce even if they never cross state lines and never interacts with vehicles who cross state lines. That's plaintiff Brock. He gets to litigate his wages claim in court, not arbitration.

The Supreme Court reaches this holding after analyzing, through dictionaries, what certain language in the FAA really means, words like "engage," which the dictionary interpreted to "take part in something or to be employed or involved in that thing." "Engage" has a broad definition, and we presume that Congress had that broad definition in mind when it enacted the FAA many years ago. 

Justice Gorsuch writes that "nothing in those terms requires an individual to cross state lines or to interact with a vehicle that does. "Interstate commerce includes transporting products between points in one state and points in another state. That involves not just crossing state lines, but intrastate activity too. Though a continuous carriage may begin in one State and end in another, much of the journey can take place within the limits of a single state. And at least sometimes, a person can take part, be employ[ed], or be involve[d] in that continuous journey without leaving a State or touching vehicles that do." No case law supports this holding, by the way. It all comes from what must be a hell of a dictionary collection at the U.S. Supreme Court library. I say this because the Court often reviews the dictionary -- including those published at or around the time a certain statute was enacted -- to understand what Congress must have intended in enacting certain statutes.

This case is the fourth in a recent like of cases narrowly interpreting the FAA to exempt certain transportation industry workers from mandatory arbitration. The Court writes:

In recent years, we have had occasion to address the scope of §1’s exemption no fewer than three times. In each case, we have rejected efforts to cabin its reach. First, in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U. S. 105 (2019), we held that the “contracts of employment” §1 embraces include contracts governing independent contractors, not just employees. Then, in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U. S. 450 (2022), we held an airline worker who loaded and unloaded cargo fit within §1’s exemption even though she did not fly planes or otherwise cross state lines. Finally, in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., 601 U.S. 246 (2024), we held that a worker can fall under §1 whether he is employed in  the “transportation industry” or some other, so long as his work “play[s] a direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders.” Make this case the fourth.

$76,000 First Amendment verdict is taken away

This case has been kicking around for quite some time. The plaintiff argues that the Town of Babylon (on Long Island) accused him of violating the Town's rental permit requirements in violation of the First Amendment (he claimed the Town retaliated due to his free speech) and due process. The First Amendment claim survived pre-trial motion practice, and the case -- originally filed in 2012 -- went to trial in 2019. Plaintiff won the trial. But things did not end with that victory. Oh Lord, they did not.

The case is Mangino v. Town of Babylon, a summary order issued on May 29. The retaliation theory was that the Town denied approval of his rental permit and initiated civil enforcement proceedings against him because he had previously objected to the Town's fee practices and enforcement methods. So, the kinds of issues that normally play out in state court -- zoning, etc -- became a federal lawsuit due to plaintiff's First Amendment claim. The jury ruled in plaintiff's favor, awarding him approximately $76,000 in damages. 

But wait! The trial court set aside the verdict as agains the weight of the evidence and ordered a second trial. This time around, the Town won the case. Plaintiff now appeals from the earlier order throwing out the favorable verdict. He loses the appeal. 

The Court of Appeals (Walker, Lee and Robinson) reviews that order under the "abuse of discretion" theory, which is highly favorable to the trial court. Appellate courts give the trial judges the benefit of the doubt in making these rulings. The trial court is in the best position to know if the evidence really supports the verdict and whether the interests of justice warrant a new trial. This case is no different. The Second Circuit holds that the trial court "carefully reviewed both testimonial and documentary evidence and concluded that the first verdict could not be reconciled with the record." The trial court found that the verdict simply could not be supported by the trial evidence, which had serious holes in it, the Court of Appeals finds.

We tell juries that they are the ultimate arbiter of the case and that we trust their judgment. When the jury renders its verdict, it leaves the courthouse believing the case is over and they did their job. The jury has no idea the case continues while the judge and the attorneys -- and maybe even the Court of Appeals -- picks through the evidence to see if the jury got it right. This case is a good example of that. It is uncommon for the trial judge to set aside a plaintiff's verdict on these grounds, but it does happen. The lawyers may understand the trial court's reasoning in ordering a new trial after the plaintiff has already prevailed. My guess is that plaintiffs will always be confused about what happened: we won the trial, the trial judge took away the verdict, we had a second trial, and a new jury ruled against us. 

Disparate impact case for social workers' licensing exam is rejected on appeal

This race discrimination claim alleges that the licensing exam for certain social workers discriminates on the basis of race because Black and Hispanic test-takers perform significantly worse than white candidates but that the Association of Social Work Boards, which administers the tests, knew about these disparities but did not correct them, resulting the plaintiffs' failing test scores. The case loses even prior to the commencement of discovery.

The case is Alameda v. Association of Social Work Boards, a summary order issued on May 15. This is a disparate impact case, where the plaintiffs can win even if the testing board did not intend to discriminate on the basis of race. For a disparate impact case to succeed, however, the plaintiffs have to satisfy a demanding legal standard that employs statistics and particular formulas. But first we have a mundane legal issue under Title VII: can the plaintiffs even sue the testing company under this civil rights statute?

Under Title VII, you can only sue the employer for discrimination. The testing people were not plaintiffs' employers. Cases hold that you can hold a third-party liable under Title VII where your formal employer "has delegated one of its core duties to a third party." But the Second Circuit (Perez, Nathan and Katzmann [Court of Intern'l Trade]) finds the defendant here is not such a "third party" that would create an employee-employer relationship under Title VII. 

Plaintiffs also sue under Section 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in making contracts. There is no employee-employer relationship requirement under Section 1981 in this case, but plaintiffs lose on a different ground relating to the merits of the case: they have not plausibly alleged a disparate impact claim.

Plaintiffs rely on statistics to assert their case, pointing to the disparate test results among white and Black and Latino/a test-takers. But under the cases, to assert such a claim based on statistics alone, you have to show the statistical disparity is "of a level that makes other plausible nondiscriminatory explanations very unlikely." In other words, you need a dramatic statistical disparity. The Court holds that the statistical disparities here do not satisfy that demanding test.

First Department reinstates sex discrimination case

The Appellate Division has reinstated a sex discrimination case against a securities firm on the basis that the case is not untimely and the plaintiff can argue that her termination was the product of a continuing violation. This is a useful ruling for employment discrimination plaintiffs under the New York City and State Human Rights Laws.

The case is Farmer v. Mizuho Securities, LLC, issued on May 12. Plaintiff claims the brokerage firm assigned her a smaller percentage of the market and a lower risk limit compared with male colleagues, and that a supervisor made disparaging comments about her appearance and suggested that she use her gender to gain favor with male colleagues. After plaintiff complained to HR about this, the supervisor vowed to get her fired, and he disparaged her job performance to others at the firm, calling her a cheater. She was forced to resign against her will. 

While the lower court dismissed the case on the pleadings, the First Department holds the plaintiff has a viable case, noting that pleading standards under the City law are lenient in discrimination cases, in contrast to the federal system, where cases are dismissed under a more exacting test thanks to the Supreme Court's dual rulings in the late 2000's, Twombly and Iqbal. "Given the allegations that defendant terminated plaintiff following months of consistently disparate treatment, plaintiff adequately pleads a causal connection between the disparate treatment and the termination. In addition, plaintiff's allegation that defendant falsely characterized its decision to end her employment, stating that it was a voluntary departure, further raises an inference of discrimination."

In emphasizing that federal pleading standards do not apply in state practice, the First Department says out loud what few state appellate rulings have overtly said on this topic, though the understanding that Iqbal pleading does not apply under the Civil Practice Law and Rules.  

The hostile work environment claim is also reinstated. While the lower court said this claim fell outside the statute-of-limitations, "the complaint, as pleaded, sufficiently alleges that the termination was the culmination of a single continuing pattern of discriminatory or retaliatory conduct extending into the limitations period, thus linking the wrongful conduct to the termination. It cannot be said as a matter of law that [the] alleged discriminatory and retaliatory acts . . . were not part of a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the three-year period immediately before the filling of the complaint."

The First Department further holds that plaintiff's termination falls within the continuing violations rule, rejecting the trial court's ruling that her termination should be considered legally distinct from other kinds of gender-based treatment. The Court observes, "The City HRL focuses on unequal treatment regardless of whether or not the defendant has engaged in tangible conduct, such as hiring and firing. Thus, under the City HRL, the continuing violation doctrine can operate to link untimely allegations of unequal treatment to timely allegations of unequal treatment, such as plaintiff's termination."

Finally, have have further proof that the State and City HRL's should be interpreted identically. The City HRL, and its liberal proof requirements, has been on the books for several decades. When the State Legislature amended the State HRL in 2019, it was unclear if that law aligned with the City law. It does. Courts are now saying as such, and the First Department explicitly says so in this ruling, perhaps for the first time, though it cites Syeed v. Bloomberg LP, 41 N.Y.3d 446 (2024), a State Court of Appeals case, for that principle. 

Bergstein & Ullrich prevail in striking down speech rules at West Point

Judge Lifts West Point’s Restrictions on Civilian Professors’ Speech

A federal judge also said that the government had offered no real justification for limiting the ability of a professor who sued to express opinions in a Military Academy classroom.

The Military Academy at West Point cannot limit certain speech of its civilian faculty, a federal judge ruled.Credit...Nathan Howard/Reuters

By Benjamin Weiser

May 26, 2026

The Military Academy at West Point cannot require civilian faculty members to obtain approval before using their West Point affiliation to speak to outside audiences about their areas of expertise, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

The academy also cannot prevent a professor, Tim Bakken, from expressing his opinions to students in the classroom on subjects he teaches, Judge Cathy Seibel of U.S. District Court in White Plains, N.Y., said in the ruling.

Professor Bakken, who has taught at West Point since 2000, had sued the academy, saying that its policies had violated the First Amendment. He has spoken and written frequently and at times critically about the U.S. military, including West Point, his lawsuit notes.

Judge Seibel issued a preliminary injunction blocking both the approval requirement and the restrictions on Professor Bakken’s speech.

She said that the government had offered no real justification for limiting his ability to express opinions in the classroom. She said the rule was “nonsensical if the mission is to prepare the nation’s future military officers.”

“For genuine strength and leadership to result,” Judge Seibel wrote, “cadets must be exposed to a variety of viewpoints and trained to think critically about them.”

“West Point cadets are already, by definition, smart, tough and patriotic,” the judge added. “They are not snowflakes who will somehow be harmed by learning about controversial issues or competing viewpoints. They will not somehow be weakened in their future defense of our country if their classroom discussions are robust and open.”

The judge noted in her decision that the policies at West Point followed an executive order, “Restoring America’s Fighting Force,” signed by President Trump a week after he took office. It was aimed at Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs within the military and also barred the military from promoting certain “un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist and irrational theories,” the ruling noted.

Mr. Trump has targeted mostly private universities and their faculty since returning to office last year, often threatening to cut off funding, and accusing them of antisemitism and indoctrinating students with ideas that run contrary to his agenda. Many of the schools, including some of the most elite ones, have settled in order to avoid further investigations and restore funding.

At West Point, following the order from Mr. Trump, professors were asked to remove course materials that discussed race, gender or painful parts of American history, The New York Times reported in May of last year.

Professor Bakken, 68, who obtained his law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School, is the longest-serving law professor in the military academy’s history, his suit says. He is also the author of a 2020 book, “The Cost of Loyalty: Dishonesty, Hubris and Failure in the U.S. Military.”

The requirement that faculty members obtain prior approval when using their West Point affiliation to speak to outside audiences lists examples like journal publications, media interviews, social media posts and podcasts, according to a copy of the policy attached to the lawsuit.

As for restrictions in classrooms, Professor Bakken said in court papers that before the directive, he routinely shared his views on topics he taught in class. He no longer does so, he says. In court papers, he cited questions he received from cadets during the fall 2025 semester seeking his opinion on whether the death penalty is effective or about the value of the movement for deinstitutionalization of mentally ill people.

“I would have provided the cadets with my opinions and views in response to their questions,” he said in court papers. He added that he refrained from doing so because of the new rules.

Judge Seibel also denied the government’s request to dismiss Professor Bakken’s lawsuit. The government had argued that a government employer was entitled to place certain restrictions on speech, as in Professor Bakken’s case, “where the agency in question is a military academy charged with training the nation’s future military officers.”

The professor was free to speak “however and to whomever he chooses,” the government wrote, “so long as he does not utilize his West Point affiliation.”

“When he seeks to invoke his status as a West Point professor,” the government said, “there is a risk that whatever message he is espousing becomes attributable to West Point or the Department of Defense.”

Professor Bakken said on Tuesday that he was grateful that he and his colleagues were “free again to search for truth, and not be subject to the censorship of the military and the government.”

“The most serious threat to free expression is a prior restraint,” he said, “and the U.S. Military Academy applied it to all of its civilian professors.”

Professor Bakken’s lawyers, Jonathan R. Goldman and Stephen Bergstein, said the lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of all civilian professors at West Point, and they will now seek a permanent injunction against the policies in question.

The military academy declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. The U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

West Point’s faculty includes 188 civilians and 495 military officers, according to a declaration filed in the case.

Benjamin Weiser is a Times reporter covering the federal courts and U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, and the justice system more broadly.