Senior judges:
Jose Cabranes,Guido Calabresi,Susan L. Carney,Denny Chin,Dennis Jacobs,Amalya Kearse,Pierre Leval,Gerard Lynch,Jon Newman,Barrington Parker, Jr.,Rosemary Pooler,Reena Raggi,Robert Sack,Chester Straub,John Walker,Richard Wesley

Debra Livingston

George W. Bush (R)

Princeton University, 1980

Harvard Law School, 1984

Raymond Lohier

Barack Obama (D)

Harvard College, 1988

New York University School of Law, 1991

Richard Sullivan

Donald Trump (R)

College of William and Mary, 1986

Yale Law, 1990

Joseph Bianco

Donald Trump (R)

Georgetown, 1988

Columbia Law, 1991

Michael H. Park

Donald Trump (R)

Princeton University, 1998

Yale Law School, 2001

Steven Menashi

Donald Trump (R)

Dartmouth College, 2001

Stanford Law School, 2008

William Nardini

Donald Trump (R)

Georgetown University, 1990

Yale Law School, 1994

Eunice Lee

Joe Biden (D)

The Ohio State University, 1993

Yale Law School, 1996

Beth Robinson

Joe Biden (D)

Dartmouth College, 1986

University of Chicago Law School, 1989

Myrna Pérez

Joe Biden (D)

Yale University, 1996

Columbia Law School, 2003

Alison J. Nathan

Joe Biden (D)

Cornell, 1994

Cornell Law, 2000

Sarah Ann Leilani Merriam

Joe Biden (D)

Georgetown University, 1993

Yale Law School, 2000

Maria Araujo Kahn

Joe Biden (D)

New York University

Fordham University School of Law, 1989

Rosemary Pooler

Bill Clinton (D)

Brooklyn College, 1959

University of Michigan Law School, 1965

Jon Newman

Jimmy Carter (D)

Princeton University, 1953

Yale Law School, 1956

Amalya Kearse

Jimmy Carter (D)

Wellesley College, 1959

University of Michigan Law School, 1962

Pierre Leval

Bill Clinton (D)

Harvard College, 1959

Harvard Law School, 1963

John Walker

George H.W. Bush (R)

Yale University, 1962

University of Michigan Law School, 1966

Chester Straub

Bill Clinton (D)

St. Peter's College, 1958

University of Virginia School of Law, 1961

Guido Calabresi

Bill Clinton (D)

Yale University, 1953

Yale Law School, 1958

Robert Sack

Bill Clinton (D)

University of Rochester, 1960

Columbia Law School, 1963

Barrington Parker, Jr.

George W. Bush (R)

Yale University, 1965

Yale Law School, 1969

Richard Wesley

George W. Bush (R)

State University of New York, Albany, 1971

Cornell Law School, 1974

Gerard Lynch

Barack Obama (D)

Columbia College, 1972

Columbia Law School, 1975

Reena Raggi

George W. Bush (R)

Wellesley College, 1973

Harvard Law School, 1976

Dennis Jacobs

George H.W. Bush (R)

City University of New York, Queens College, 1964

New York University School of Law, 1973

Denny Chin

Barack Obama (D)

Princeton University, 1975

Fordham University School of Law, 1978

Susan L. Carney

Harvard University, 1973

Harvard Law School, 1977

Jose Cabranes

Columbia University, 1961

Yale Law School, 1965

• Robert Katzmann - (2013-2020)
• Dennis Jacobs - (2006-2013)
• John Walker - (2001-2006)
• Ralph Winter - (1997-2000)
• Jon Newman - (1993-1997)
• Thomas Meskill - (1992-1993)
• James Oakes - (1988-1992)
• Wilfred Feinberg - (1980-1988)
• Irving Kaufman - (1973-1980)

• Henry Friendly - (1971-1973)
• Joseph Lumbard - (1959-1971)
• Charles Edward Clark - (1954-1959)
• Harrie Brigham Chase - (1953-1954)
• Thomas Walter Swan - (1951-1953)
• Learned Hand - (1948-1951)

Source:United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

Articles:

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.^[10][11]

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 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."^[12][13][14]

On November 23, 2013, a three-judge panel of theSecond Circuit, consisting of Chief JudgeRobert Katzmann, JudgeRosemary Pooler, and Senior JudgePierre Leval, upheld the dismissal of Mark Sacha’s lawsuit against Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita III. In the underlying case, Sedita fired Sacha from his position as Assistant District Attorney following Sacha's public contention that Sedita failed to prosecute G. Steven Pigeon on allegations of election law violations (specifically, the alleged laundering of a $10,000 campaign contribution). Sacha claimed he was fired in retaliation for his criticism of Sedita and filed suit in December 2009, alleging that his First Amendment rights had been violated. Sedita filed a motion forsummary judgment, and Chief JudgeWilliam Skretny of theUnited States District Court for the Western District of New York granted it in October 2012, citing the fact that his statements to the press were made in his capacity as an ADA, not as a private citizen, and thus his free speech rights had not been violated. That decision isavailable here. Sacha appealed Skretny's ruling to the Second Circuit, where the three-judge panel affirmed Skretny's ruling, but on alternate grounds, noting that "Sacha’s speech was sufficiently disruptive to justify terminating his employment as an assistant district attorney." Sacha vowed to file a further appeal, claiming that the Second Circuit's three-judge panel had a conflict of interest in hearing the case.^[15][16]

On October 31, 2013, a three-judge panel of theSecond Circuit, composed of JudgeJose Cabranes and Senior JudgesJohn Walker andBarrington Parker, removed JudgeShira Scheindlin fromFloyd v. City of New York and put the remedies proposed by the judge on hold. The previous court order was stayed until an appeal was heard by the panel.^[17]

Scheindlin was removed from the case as a result of interviews with the media in May 2013 which made the court question her impartiality. In response to the accusation that she violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges, Scheindlin said:

On November 22, 2013, the judicial panel refused in a per curiam decision to vacate Judge Scheindlin's prior ruling which struck down the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. The judges denied motions filed by New York City to transfer the court's October 2013 stay of Scheindlin's ruling into its vacation, and further denied as moot motions filed by Scheindlin in opposition to the City's previously described motions. Judge Scheindlin's "stop-and-frisk" decision still stands.^[20]

Background

In August 2013, Scheindlin ruled that the New York Police Department's (NYPD) "stop-and-frisk" rule, which the NYPD credited with saving lives, disregarded theFourth andFourteenth Amendments. Scheindlin also found that officers used racial profiling during the process, unfairly targeting minorities.^[21][22][23]

On August 3, 2012, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the lower court decision and held that a suit could continue which alleged that the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington, Vermont violated the 13^th amendment by requiring an individual to work in the laundry room for $0.25 an hour. The suit was filed by Finbar McGarry who alleged that during his time pending trial in the facility, he was forced to work 14-hour shifts, three days a week, and was punished with solitary confinement if he refused. He filed the suit a month before his release, requesting $11 million in damages. U.S. District JudgeGarvan Murtha threw out the case claiming that McGarry did not prove that the forced work was akin to African American slavery, which the act was originally designed to protect against. The three-judge appeals court panel, composed ofRobert Katzmann,Richard Wesley, and the writing judgeBarrington Parker, disagreed, writing in their opinion, "The Amendment was intended to prohibit all forms of involuntary labor, not solely to abolish chattel slavery." In addition, the court held that McGarry's pretrial status required that the state treat him differently as he was not yet convicted and the charges were later dropped. The case was remanded back to Judge Murtha for further evaluation.^[24]

On July 10, 2012, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of JudgeJed Rakoff, ruling that federal regulations preempted a city ordinance that required cigarette distributors to post graphic photos of cigarette-related illnesses at the point of sale. The court held that the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempted the local law, thus rendering the local ordinance unconstitutional.Philip Morris USA alongside two other manufacturers, two major retailers, and two trade unions challenged this city law in federal court in 2011. Despite admitting the risks of smoking, Rakoff agreed with the cigarette producers, stating in his opinion, "Even merchants of morbidity are entitled to the full protection of the law." The Second Circuit concurred, though a three-judge panel believed that the city could launch its own anti-smoking campaign using the images, but could not require retailers to do it. The case was heard by JudgesPeter Hall,Gerard Lynch, andDenny Chin, with Chin writing the opinion of the court.^[25][26]

TheSecond Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 100,000-resident town of Greece,NY, violated a constitutional ban against favoring one religion over another, in what was deemed a significant test to the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.^[27] 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.^[27]

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.^[27]

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 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling that "the town's process for selecting prayer-givers virtually ensured a Christian viewpoint.”^[27][28]

The case was appealed to theSupreme Court of the United States in 2013. In 2014, the Court reversed the Second Circuit's ruling.^[29]

JudgeJohn Walker authored the Second Circuit Court's opinion in a ruling declaring that Citigroup was not liable to workers who lost money on their 401(k) plans due to the company's exposure to toxic debt. The court split 2-1 in the decision, with JudgeJose Cabranes agreeing with Judge Walker and JudgeChester Straub dissenting. The case was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by workers who claimed that Citigroup should not have offered bank stock in its retirement plans because it knew its subprime mortgage exposure made the stock a dangerous investment. The court disagreed, and Judge Walker wrote that the workers did not show that Citigroup "either knew or should have known that Citigroup was in the sort of dire situation that required them to override plan terms in order to limit participants' investments in Citigroup stock." Marc Machiz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he expected the case to be reheard by the full Second Circuit Court.^[30]

District JudgeWilliam Pauley denied a request by former New York State SenatorHiram Monserrate (D) to stop a decision made by theNew York Senate to expel him on February 9, 2010.^[31]

Monserrate was expelled after being convicted of domestic violence towards his girlfriend, which was a misdemeanor.^[31]

The case was appealed to theSecond Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appellate court judges,Gerard Lynch,Dennis Jacobs, andJane Restani, ruled that the district court "did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Monserrate Appellants failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of any of the claims they press on appeal. We thus need not reach any of the other arguments advanced by the parties. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction."^[32]

On August 24, 2009, District JudgeLoretta Preska ruled that the Federal Reserve must disclose the recipients of emergency loans and aid during the economic downturn.^[33]

Bloomberg News took court action after the nation's central bank refused to comply with aFreedom of Information Act request. According to the network, Bloomberg News hoped that if it made public the recipients of bailout money, it would deter more bailout money from being handed out.^[33]

As part of her order, Preska gave the Federal Reserve five days to hand over the documents. On August 28, 2009, Preska delayed her order requiring the Federal Reserve to disclose bailout recipients. Preska also allowed the Fed to file an appeal with theSecond Circuit Court of Appeals.^[34]

The case was subsequently argued in front of theSecond Circuit Court of Appeals on January 11, 2010, and decided on March 19, 2010. The appellate court judges,Dennis Jacobs,Pierre Leval, andPeter Hall, upheld the decision reached by Judge Preska.^[35]

District JudgeLaura Swain tossed out a copyright infringement lawsuit against Jessica Seinfeld on September 10, 2009, after the judge found that a recipe in a cook book did not infringe on a competing author.^[36]

Missy Chase Lapine sued the wife of comedian Jerry Seinfeld claiming a chicken breast recipe infringed on her similar recipe and competed unfairly. The judge found that because the styles of the books differed there was no evidence that Jessica Seinfeld committed plagiarism.^[36] The judgment can be readhere.

The case was appealed to theSecond Circuit Court of Appeals. The two appeals court judges,Reena Raggi andPeter Hall, ruled against Missy Chase Lapine and affirmed Swain's decision.^[37]

In 2010, Missy Chase Lapine sued Jerry Seinfeld for slander as a result of an interview Mr. Seinfeld participated in on the David Letterman television show. TheNew York Supreme Court dismissed the claim as being without merit in 2011. The judgment can be readhere.^[38]

Sotomayor joined a finding in favor of the city of New Haven rejecting a lawsuit filed by 17 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter claiming race discrimination when the city of New Haven denied promotions following a promotion examination that yielded no black candidates eligible for advancement. In a 5-4 decision, theSupreme Court of the United States overturned the decision stating the decision to cancel the promotions violated theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Title VII of the 1964Civil Rights Act, which guarantees equal employment opportunity. The Court found that Sotomayor's ruling would allow the city to "experiment" with tests until it found one that produced "a more desirable racial distribution."^{[39][40][41][42][43]}

Sotomayor ruled in favor of environmental group Riverkeeper, which challenged an EPA ruling on the Clean Water Act's "best technology" rule involving power plants' need to intake water as weighed against the risk to aquatic life in surrounding waters. In her ruling, she held that "Congress has already specified the relationship between cost and benefits in requiring that the technology designated by EPA be the best available." Sotomayor's decision was overturned by theUnited States Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote where the Court held that the EPA could not weigh the costs of changes to power plants versus the value of organisms in dollar terms, but could consider only what costs "may reasonably be borne" by power plants when determining the best technology rule available.^[44][45]

In a case involving the conservativeMexico City Policy, announced by Ronald Reagan (R) in 1984 and subsequently rescinded by PresidentBill Clinton (D) and reauthorized by PresidentGeorge W. Bush (R), Sotomayor found that the federal government was within its rights to deny federal aid to foreign organizations that support or perform abortions. She dismissed claims by the pro-choice Center for Reproductive Law and Policy that theMexico City Policy violated the First Amendment right to association as well as Fifth Amendment rights todue process andequal protection. In her finding, Sotomayor cited theForeign Assistance Act of 1961 which authorizes the President "to furnish assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, for voluntary population planning" as well as multipleSupreme Court precedents. In her decision, Sotomayor wrote, "theSupreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."^[46][47][48]

In this case, Sotomayor found that an inmate living in a halfway house could sue a government contractor for forcing him to climb five flights of stairs despite a heart condition after the inmate suffered a heart attack, fell down the stairs, and injured himself. Sotomayor held "extending Bivens liability to reach private corporations furthers [its] overriding purpose: providing redress for violations of constitutional rights." Bivens was a 1971 Supreme Court case that allowed some people whose rights had been violated by federal agents to sue. The Supreme Court overturned Sotomayor's decision in a 5-4 ruling stating that only individual agents, not corporations, could be sued for such violations.^[49][45]

Chief Judge: Debra Livingston  •  Joseph Bianco  •  Richard Sullivan (New York)  •  Maria Araujo Kahn  •  Raymond Lohier  •  Alison J. Nathan  •  Beth Robinson  •  Sarah A.L. Merriam  •  Michael Park  •  Steven Menashi  •  William Nardini  •  Eunice Lee  •  Myrna Pérez

Denny Chin  •  Gerard Lynch  •  Pierre Leval  •  Dennis Jacobs  •  Jon Newman  •  Amalya Kearse  •  John Walker (New York)  •  Chester Straub  •  Guido Calabresi  •  Jose Cabranes  •  Robert Sack  •  Barrington Parker  •  Reena Raggi  •  Richard Wesley  •  Susan L. Carney (Second Circuit)  •  

Wilfred Feinberg  •  Jon Newman  •  Ralph Winter  •  John Walker (New York)  •  Robert Katzmann  •  Thomas Meskill  •  James Oakes  •  Learned Hand  •  Harrie Brigham Chase  •  Thomas Walter Swan  •  Charles Edward Clark  •  Irving Kaufman  •  Henry Friendly  •  Joseph Lumbard  •