See also:United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (U.S. v. Apple, Inc., 1:12-cv-02826-DLC)

On January 21, 2014, JudgeRaymond Joseph Lohier, Jr. granted a temporary stay as to the work performed by Michael Bromwich, the court-appointed monitor in the Apple e-book antitrust case. The stay was to remain in effect until a three-judge panel of theSecond Circuit was available to decide whether Bromwich should be removed as monitor. In the underlying case, JudgeDenise Cote found in July 2013 that Apple conspired with online publishers to fix the prices of e-books. She appointed Bromwich to oversee and monitor the company’s compliance with federal antitrust laws in October 2013. In an earlier motion filed by Apple, the company claimed that Cote’s appointment of a monitor in a civil antitrust case was unprecedented. Attorneys for Apple contested Bromwich’s hourly fee of $1,100, alleging that because of the “extremely broad powers” Cote conferred upon him, he was able to overreach in his investigations such that they bordered on interfering with the company’s daily operations. Cote denied Apple’s request to remove Bromwich as monitor just days before Lohier issued the temporary stay. In his ruling, Lohier noted that Apple’s request for Bromwich’s permanent ouster would be heard “as soon as possible” by an appellate panel. Lohier's order isavailable here.^[4][5]

Update

On February 10, 2014, a three-judge panel of theSecond Circuit composed of JudgeGerard Lynch and Senior JudgesPierre Leval andGuido Calabresi rejected Judge Lohier's stay and restored Michael Bromwich's ability to perform his duties as Apple's e-book antitrust monitor, with the understanding that Apple may pursue a further appeal to remove Bromwich from his position. In the order, the judicial panel noted that according to the government, Judge Cote's initial order was to be "interpreted narrowly." As a result, Lynch, Leval, and Calabresi agreed that as antitrust monitor, Bromwich was only to "assess the appropriateness of the compliance programs adopted by Apple and the means used to communicate those those programs to its personnel." The Second Circuit panel went on to limit Bromwich's authority, empowering him to "demand only documents relevant to his authorized responsibility . . . and to interview Apple directors, officers and employees only on subjects relevant to that responsibility."^[6][7][8]

See also:United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Galloway and Stephens v. Town of Greece, et al, 10-3635-cv)

TheSecond Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Greece,New York, violated a constitutional ban against favoring one religion over another.^[9] The decision, issued on the May 17, 2012, stated that by opening nearly every monthly town meeting with Christian-centric prayers, the town was favoring Christianity over other religions.^[10] The meetings in question took place every month between 1999 and 2007, and from January 2009 to June 2010 in the suburb of Rochester, New York. Who was to deliver the invocation was decided each month by a town employee who chose clerics or laypeople from a local published guide of churches that did not include any places of worship outside of the Christian denomination. After complaints from two town residents, four of the 12 meetings in 2008 were opened by invocations from other faiths.^[9][10] The suit, first brought in 2010, was originally decided in favor of the City of Greece. The lower court ruled that there was no indication that one faith was favored over another, or that the town purposely excluded other faiths. The decision was overturned by theSecond Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that "the town's process for selecting prayer-givers virtually ensured a Christian viewpoint".^[9] The case was appealed to theSupreme Court of the United States in 2013.^[11]

In a 5-4 opinion released on May 5, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit’s ruling, holding that "The town's practice of opening its town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy does not violate the Establishment Clause when the practice is consistent with the tradition long followed by Congress and state legislatures, the town does not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer, and the prayer does not coerce participation with non-adherents."^[12]

• Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
• Appointed by Bill Clinton
• Appointed by William J. Clinton
• Confirmed 1994
• Federal Article III judges
• Federal judiciary nominee, February 1994
• Judge on senior status, United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
• Senior federal judge
• United States of America
• Noteworthy case
• Second Circuit, Seat 3
• Judge on senior status, Second Circuit