In an opinion today, a three-judge SDNY panel comprised of Judge Furman and Circuit Judges Wesley and Hall invalidated a Presidential memorandum which stated that, in apportioning Congressional seats, “it is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.” (The three-judge structure was triggered by 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b), which governs cases about Congressional apportionment.)

The panel concluded that the memorandum conflicted with a statutory mandate to apportion Congressional seats based on the census results alone: Continue Reading Three-Judge SDNY Panel Invalidates President Trump’s Directive to Exclude Undocumented Immigrants in Apportioning Congressional Seats

On Friday, Judge Rakoff denied cross-motions for summary judgment in Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. (See our earlier coverage here.) Palin argued that the “actual malice” standard for defamatory statements against public figures was no longer good law or did not apply to this case, while the Times argued that no reasonable jury could find that the allegedly defamatory statements were published with actual malice. The case will proceed to trial next Februrary.

Continue Reading Judge Rakoff Clears Sarah Palin’s Defamation Lawsuit Against NY Times for February Trial

In a 103-page opinion, Judge Marrero rejected President Trump’s latest attempt to block a grand jury subpoena issued to Trump’s accounting firm by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. In July, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Trump could not obtain injunctive relief based on an assertion of categorical immunity from criminal process while in office. (See our previous coverage here.) On remand, Trump argued that the subpoena was overbroad and issued in bad faith.

Dismissing the amended complaint, Judge Marrero found that “the filing of the [amended complaint] to assert claims and reargue issues substantially addressed in earlier proceedings would prolong the President’s noncompliance with the grand jury’s demand for the documents in dispute.” Continue Reading Judge Marrero Upholds Manhattan District Attorney’s Subpoena for Trump Tax Records

In an opinion last week, Judge Caproni ruled unlawful a memorandum issued by the Department of Interior that interpreted a provision of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) that prohibits killing “by any means whatever . . . at any time or in any manner, any migratory bird” to exclude incidental, unintentional killing.

The opinion begins: Continue Reading Judge Caproni: Agency Cannot Rewrite Statutory Prohibition on Killing Migratory Birds to Carve Out Unintentional Killings

In an opinion Monday, Judge Rakoff refused to vacate an antitrust arbitration ruling in Uber’s favor, even though the arbitrator joked at one point: “I must say I act out of fear. My fear is if I ruled Uber illegal, I would need security. I wouldn’t be able to walk the streets at night. People would be after me.”

Judge Rakoff found this was merely a poor attempt at humor by an arbitrator that had better jokes on other occasions in the case (e.g., “ARBITRATOR: I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but when surge prices go on, I check Lyft. [KALANICK]: That’s fair.”): Continue Reading Judge Rakoff: Arbitrator’s Joke About “Fearing” Uber Does Not Justify Vacating Award

Earlier today, Judge Oetken issued a decision invalidating several provisions of a Department of Labor rule implementing the paid sick leave and emergency family leave provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The Labor Department had excluded employees who were unable to work because their employers had no work available for them as a result of the economic downturn caused by COVID-19. It also adopted a broad definition of “health care provider,” which would have allowed “an English professor, librarian, or cafeteria manager at a university with a medical school” to be denied paid leave.

Continue Reading Judge Oetken Strikes Down Labor Department Restrictions on COVID-19 Paid Leave

Last week, Judge Cote ruled that a New York’s Penal Law Section 215.50 – a misdemeanor criminal contempt statute that prohibits shouting and display of signage within two hundred feet of a courthouse where that speech concerns a trial ongoing in that courthouse – violated the First Amendment.  The case arose when the defendant distributed pamphlets with information about jury nullification outside the Bronx County Hall of Justice and was arrested after refusing to move outside of the 200-foot perimeter.

Judge Cote found that the act was not sufficiently tailored to meet the state’s purported interest in protecting trial integrity: Continue Reading Judge Cote Strikes Down New York State Prohibition Against Trial Signage Outside Courthouses, Citing First Amendment

In litigation concerning certain promissory notes issued by the Venezuelan state-owned oil company, Judge Failla today issued an order granting a request by the trustee and collateral agent for the noteholders to keep under seal the identity of their expert on Venezuelan law.

Since last year, there has been dispute as to whether the rightful President of Venezuela is Nicolás Maduro or Juan Guaidó, and the noteholders argued that allies of Guaidó would retaliate against anyone supporting enforcement of the notes.

Judge Failla reviewed certain evidence ex parte and concluded that “that there is sufficient evidence of potential harm to [the] expert that protection of the expert’s identity is warranted.”

In an opinion Monday, Judge Vyskocil denied a motion to force a partnership dispute over a medical practice to be arbitrated in a Jewish court (referred to in the opinion as either a “beis din” or “beth din”).  The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were “religiously bound to bring their dispute in the first instance to a Beis Din” but were only pursing their claims in the district court “until such time as Defendants comply with the hazmanah,” the equivalent of a summons.

The defendants agreed that the parties were bound to bring their case before a Jewish court, but what has kept the case in the Southern District was the parties’ inability to agree as to which Jewish court should hear the case.  Absent consensus on that point, Judge Vyskocil ruled, there was no binding arbitration agreement under New York law: Continue Reading Judge Vyskocil: New York Law, Not Jewish Law, Governs Whether Parties Agreed to Resolve Their Dispute Before Jewish Court

The Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the conclusion of both Judge Marrero and the Second Circuit (see our coverage here) that President Trump was not immune from a grand jury subpoena issued by the Manhattan District Attorney. Writing for a 7-2 majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the immunity sought ran “against 200 years of precedent”: Continue Reading Case Over DA Subpoena to Trump Returns from Supreme Court to Judge Marrero