2nd Circuit Civil Rights Law News - U.S. Second Circuit
U.S. Second Circuit - The FindLaw 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

So-called anti-vaxxers believe that vaccination is harmful, as vaccines contain harmful "chemicals." A resurgence in once long-gone diseases is arguably attributable to a new wave of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

The problem is that many public school districts require children to be vaccinated before they can attend school. Because, you know, a parent's decision not to vaccinate actually has consequences for other children. But just ignore all that. An anti-vaccine case hit the Second Circuit Court of Appeals -- and, predictably, the anti-vaxxers lost.

Back in July, Microsoft lost a battle to protect data stored on Irish email servers, wholly owned and controlled by Microsoft, from the U.S. Justice Department. All we know about these email MacGuffins is that they have something to do with drugs.

Appealing to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Microsoft argues that, because the magnetic particles comprising the data are physically located in Ireland, those particles -- and the data they represent -- are protected by Irish and European privacy laws, meaning Microsoft can't be compelled to turn them over.

In October, the Nonhuman Rights Project, a legal advocacy group for chimpanzees, argued that a 26-year-old chimp named Tommy should be recognized as a "person" under New York law and granted a writ of habeas corpus.

Chimps, the group argued in a 65-page brief submitted to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division last March, share genetic information as well as cognitive skills with humans. They understand language and use tools. Chimps trained in American Sign Language can even teach other chimps how to sign. For all these reasons and more, the Nonhuman Rights Project argued that Tommy should be released from his cage.

This has been going on for far too long -- the litigation, that is. "Stop and frisk" was a terrible, constitutionally suspect practice where police officers would stop and pat down pedestrians in high-crime areas for no real reason. Disproportionately, those stopped were minorities.

Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall after multiple unfavorable court decisions, or perhaps because he understands the Fourth Amendment better than his predecessor, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio decided to settle the case. But the police unions, unhappy with the settlement, sought to intervene.

On Friday, the Second Circuit, affirming the district court's earlier ruling, held that their attempt was too little, too late. And with no intervenors left to spoil the party, this could be the last we hear about stop and frisk.

Mohammed al-Qahtani was alleged to be the "20th hijacker" of the September 11, 2001 hijackings. He's been held at the U.S. facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 2002. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has attempted to use the Freedom of Information Act to get "certain videos and photographs" of al-Qahtani -- ostensibly images of him being tortured, which CCR claimed has been happening for the last 13 years.

Today, the Second Circuit affirmed a district court ruling denying CCR access to those documents on the ground that it could compromise national security.

Recent in events in Ferguson, Missouri have prompted questions about the militarization of police: why do SWAT teams need to be armed like they're going into Kandahar? Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals criticized this militant response in an appeal over police conduct during a drug raid -- although "drug raid" is a loose term.

In order to serve a search warrant on Ronald Terebesi, who was alleged to possess a small quantity of crack cocaine, "police planned to smash Terebesi's windows, detonate at least three stun grenades (or "flash bangs") inside the home, break down the front door with a battering ram, and storm the house with weapons drawn."

Ah, a bar association which doesn't take divisive stances that are likely to irk its members.

Connecticut lawmakers passed some pretty strict gun laws after the Newton tragedy. In Shew v. Malloy, a federal district court upheld the constitutionality of these new gun laws, and an appeal is working its way through the Second Circuit.

Connecticut's bar association initially voted to join the defense of the laws, but after a wee bit of backlash and a referendum, that's not happening any longer.

A class action lawsuit against the City of New York can proceed, the Second Circuit ruled today. The lawsuit began when hundreds of Occupy Wall Street protesters marched across the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1, 2011. Halfway across the bridge, they were trapped and arrested by police.

Police claimed the protesters were arrested for impeding traffic, but the protesters claimed that they were lured onto the bridge by police, who they say escorted them onto the bridge, only to arrest them once they were there. Though the police were actually announcing over a megaphone that protesters who entered the roadway would be arrested, the plaintiffs in this claim that they couldn't hear them.

Question: How do you know when you've been blogging way too long?

Answer: When the topic of rabbis providing orally assisted circumcisions crosses your desk twice -- first as a deceased baby case, then as a Second Circuit case addressing a New York City regulation passed in the wake of the tragedy.

The practice at issue is called metzizah b'peh, which involves removing blood from the circumcision wound with the rabbi's mouth. The ritual continues to be widespread in Orthodox communities in New York City, despite previous cases of babies contracting or dying from herpes after the ritual, including three cases tied to a single rabbi who has since been banned from performing the procedure.

"Stop and frisk" just got one step closer to becoming a sad, unconstitutional footnote in the annals of New York City, though it seems my fellow blogger's predictions proved prescient:

"Well, we're of the opinion that no matter what decision the district court comes to regarding whether law enforcement associations can intervene, someone's going to have a problem with it. If the district court does not allow them to intervene, they [the police unions] will appeal.

Yep. U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres denied the police unions' attempt to intervene and block the "stop and frisk" settlement last week. As predicted, Patrick Lynch, president of the city Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, one of five unions that sought to intervene, said the union would ask the Second Circuit to overturn Torres' ruling, reports Reuters.