In a 108-page opinion today, Judge Torres ruled that various police unions could not intervene to block or appeal the settlement of litigation concerning the police practice known as “stop-and-frisk.”  New York City and the plaintiffs have agreed to settlement terms, but Judge Torres found that the unions raised their objections too late and that, in any event, the unions lacked sufficient interest in the merits that were distinct from the interests of the City:
Continue Reading Judge Torres Denies Police Unions’ Request to Intervene in Stop-and-Frisk Litigation

The Second Circuit issued two orders today concerning the removal of Judge Scheindlin from the stop-and-frisk litigation. In the first Order, the Second Circuit ruled that she lacked standing to intervene to seek to vacate the ruling removing her:

We know of no precedent suggesting that a district judge has standing before an appellate court to protest reassignment of a case. While a district judge may believe that he or she has expended a great deal of effort and energy on a case, only to see it reassigned, reassignment is not a legal injury to the district judge.

Continue Reading Second Circuit Denies Judge Scheindlin Intervention in Stop-and-Frisk Case and Explains Grounds for Her Removal

The Second Circuit panel that removed Judge Scheindlin from the stop-and-frisk case cited her “improper application of the Court’s ‘related case rule,’” without further explanation. In a motion filed late this evening asking the Second Circuit to vacate Judge Scheindlin’s orders, New York City argued that Judge Scheindlin violated the related case rule, which the

In a motion today, Judge Scheindlin, represented by NYU Law professor Bert Neuborne, asked the Second Circuit for leave to file a motion to be restored to the stop-and-frisk case. The motion argues that Judge Scheindlin was “blind-sided” by the Second Circuit’s decision to remove her and that she should have had an opportunity to respond:
Continue Reading Judge Scheindlin Moves to Be Restored to Stop-and-Frisk Case

In ruling this morning, Judge Scheindlin ruled unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments the New York Police Department’s “stop-and-frisk” policing method. As we have reported on in the past, Judge Scheindlin conducted a bench trial of claims brought by a class of plaintiffs who alleged to have been unlawfully detained under the policy. In the 198-page liability opinion, Judge Scheindlin found that the NYPD’s stops of 4.4 million people from 2004 to 2012 – 80% of which were of black or Hispanic individuals and more than half of which led to a frisk – were done without legal basis in violation of the Fourth Amendment and were targeted to particular races in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Scheindlin explained that her decision was not based on the effectiveness of the stop-and-frisk method.
Continue Reading Judge Scheindlin Rules “Stop-and-Frisk” Unconstitutional