Last Tuesday, after oral argument, Judge Buchwald granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration concerning the detainment and removal of Columbia student, Yunseo Chung, who is a lawful permanent resident. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for May 20, and the government is barred from detaining her or transferring her out of the Southern District in the meantime.

Ms. Chung filed her complaint last Monday, alleging that the attempted deportation violated her First Amendment rights. Ms. Chung participated in a “sit-in and protest” at Columbia on March 5, 2025, at which she was arrested and “given a Desk Appearance Ticket, . . . a common citation issued by the police at protests.” By March 10, 2025, Ms. Chung’s counsel was notified that her “lawful permanent resident status” was being revoked, and judicial search warrants were executed three days later.

The government is apparently invoking a law allowing for the removal of noncitizens whose presence or activities in the United States “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” as determined by the Secretary of State. Ms. Chung’s brief in support of the TRO argues that it was until recently “preposterous” to think that student protests would trigger this law:

Continue Reading Judge Buchwald Grants TRO Preventing Deportation of Columbia Student Protester

Last week, a group of professional tennis players and the Professional Tennis Players Association (a group co-founded by Novak Djokovic) filed a 163-page complaint against the International Tennis Federation (which regulates professional tennis tournaments, including the four “Grand Slams”), the ATP Tour (which regulates men’s professional tennis tours), the WTA Tour (which regulates women’s professional tennis tours), and the International Tennis Integrity Agency (which investigates and disciplines players for doping and corruption). The complaint argues that the Defendants formed a cartel and implemented interlocking anticompetitive measures, including caps on tournament prize money and requirements that players sign over name, imagine, and likeness rights as a condition of competing. The result, the complaint alleges, is a “marketplace bereft of rivals competing for the players’ services”:

Defendants’ unlawful actions have destroyed fair competition, with devastating effects. Defendants’ scheme has resulted in a marketplace bereft of rivals competing for the players’ services. Because of the anticompetitive restraints that entrench their market power and bar new market entrants, Defendants and their co-conspirators operate insulated from competition and can freely pay players less and provide worse working conditions as a result. Defendants and their co-conspirators are able to divide the cartel’s profits while players and fans suffer. Because of Defendants’ actions, tournaments have no need (and no ability) to compete with one another to attract players with better pay or higher quality tournaments, alternative events are excluded from competing for the players’ labor, and players have lost the freedom to play where, when, and on what terms they want.

The case is already becoming combative. Over the weekend, the plaintiffs accused the ATP of trying to intimidate players at the Miami Open by demanding that players sign statements disavowing the lawsuit.  The ATP responded yesterday, denying any wrongdoing.

The case is assigned to Judge Garnett.

On Wednesday, Judge Furman ruled on several motions in limine for an upcoming bench trial, including denying a motion to preclude the testimony of a fact witness that defendants had failed to include, without justification, in their Rule 26 disclosures.

The Court explained that preclusion was too “drastic” for this case, where there was no prejudice to the plaintiff:

Continue Reading Judge Furman: Preclusion Too “Drastic” for Witness Omitted From Rule 26 Disclosures Absent Prejudice

Last Friday, Judge Vargas granted a preliminary injunction filed by the Attorneys General of 19 States that restrains the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) from accessing Treasury Department payment systems. The preliminary injunction substantially tracks the temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that Judge Engelmayer granted on February 9th, which bars the Treasury Department from granting access to DOGE team members to “any payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees.” The Court’s order also provides an opportunity for Defendants to cure the procedural defects related to the protection of sensitive and confidential information, which would then possibly justify termination or modification of the preliminary injunction.

Continue Reading Judge Vargas Grants Preliminary Injunction Limiting DOGE Access to U.S. Treasury systems

On Wednesday, Judge Woods endorsed a joint letter from the New York Times and the Department of Justice to stay proceedings in a FOIA case, pending the outcome of an administrative appeal.

The case concerns the NYT’s January 10, 2025 expedited FOIA request for the second volume of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report. This volume addresses his decisionmaking in the criminal case against Trump regarding the alleged mishandling of classified documents. On January 21, 2025, alleging that the DOJ had not addressed their expedited processing request within the required timeframe, Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit.

Subsequently, the DOJ expedited the NYT’s request, and then denied it on February 5, 2025. Because a decision has been issued, an administrative appeal is now available.

In requesting a stay, the parties recognized, but did not ask the Court to address, an “unusual” issue:

Continue Reading Judge Woods Stays FOIA Case Over Volume II of Jack Smith Report, Allowing For Administrative Process to Be Completed

On Saturday, Judge Engelmayer granted an application for temporary restraining order filed that day by the Attorneys General of 19 States. They requested that, pending a hearing for preliminary injunction, the Court restrain access by the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) — or others that normally lack access — to the Treasury Department’s “payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees.”

Among the arguments advanced by the Attorneys General is that the Privacy Act of 1974 limits the disclosure of confidential information within an agency to specified persons within that agency, without any authority for disclosure to DOGE staffers or others outside Treasury.

The Court, in granting the temporary restraining order and scheduling a hearing for a preliminary injunction for February 14, agreed with the States that, absent a TRO, there was risk of sensitive information being compromised or the system being vulnerable to hacking:

Continue Reading Judge Engelmayer Grants TRO Blocking Access to Treasury Databases

On Thursday, Judge Oetken granted defendant Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment in a derivative action brought on behalf of the now-defunct Lifetrade investment fund. Despite granting the motion, Judge Oetken explained in a footnote that the parties’ 56.1 statements were improper.

The Court noted that the parties submitted a collective 879 pages of “unnecessary, redundant, and improper 56.1 filings.” Specifically, both parties repeatedly disputed facts they admitted were true, and then, in response to each others’ statements, added repetitive boilerplate language “taking issue with the false disputes” that, while legally correct, “only amplified the problem.”

Judge Oetken set out his expectations:

As other courts in this district have already observed, such flagrant disregard of the Court’s Rules cannot stand. The net result of counsel’s deficiencies has been to impose on the Court and its limited resources the burden of parsing the entirety of the voluminous record in the case to ensure that [their] client’s claims receive thorough and just consideration. In the future, it simply will not do for counsel to say that genuine issues of material fact exist and then rely on the Court to go find them. Much more is expected from an experienced member of the bar of this Court and will henceforth be strictly required.

On Thursday, Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Major League Baseball’s motion to stay discovery in a sexual harassment and gender bias lawsuit filed by two aspiring umpires employed by MLB. The prospective umpires’ second amended complaint, filed in November, asserts hostile-work-environment, wrongful termination, and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In December, MLB filed a motion to dismiss certain of the plaintiffs’ claims, to sever plaintiffs’ claims, and to transfer each plaintiff’s remaining claims out of the Southern District of New York.

On January 3, MLB filed a motion to stay discovery in the case, arguing that its motions to dismiss, sever and transfer provided sufficient grounds on which to pause discovery until the motions were decided. Judge Broderick denied MLB’s motion to stay, finding that MLB had not shown good cause to pause discovery.

Continue Reading Judge Broderick Refuses To Stay Discovery in Suit Against Major League Baseball

In an Order yesterday, Judge Torres took issue with the “relentless” filings of counsel for Sean Carter (known professionally as Jay-Z) in a case accusing Mr. Carter and Sean Combs of abusing the plaintiff, a minor at the time of the alleged incident.

Mr. Carter was added to the case in an amendment on December 9, and his lawyer filed letters on December 9, December 10, and December 13, followed by an emergency motion on December 18, all of which argued that the case was meritless and attacked counsel for the plaintiff (who, for his part, responded with a letter on December 20).

Judge Torres was not amused by the “litany” of filings by Mr. Carter’s counsel and suggested that they were a disservice to Mr. Carter:

Continue Reading Judge Torres Refuses to “Fast-Track” Abuse Case In Response to “Relentless” Filings from Jay-Z’s Counsel

On Wednesday, in a case brought by the individuals who were falsely convicted of the assassination of Malcolm X in 1965, Judge Ho denied the government’s motion to dismiss with regard to plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claims because sovereign immunity is waived under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

Under a 1974 amendment to the FTCA, sovereign immunity is waived for malicious prosecution claims arising after the amendment, i.e., for claims arising after March 16, 1974. In his decision, Judge Ho considered for the first time in this court whether a malicious prosecution claim “arises” for the purposes of the FTCA when the prosecution takes place or when the claimant is exonerated. This case offered the unique situation where the wrongful conviction occurred before 1974, but the exoneration occurred after.

Continue Reading Judge Ho: Malicious Prosecution Claims Do Not “Arise” Under FTCA Until Exoneration