In 2017, Menashi took a leave of absence from George Mason to become the Deputy General Counsel for Postsecondary Service at theUnited States Department of Education and served asGeneral Counsel on an acting basis for that department as of May 24.[9] At the Department of Education, Menashi helped devise a plan by the Department of Education to deny debt relief for thousands of students who were cheated byfor-profit colleges. The plan, which used students' private Social Security data, was ruled illegal by a federal judge.[10] The Department argued that the plan only involved the use of "aggregate, statistical data without any personal identifiers". His role as acting general counsel ended on April 23, 2018, afterCarlos G. Muñiz was confirmed to that position by the U.S. Senate.[11]
On September 11, 2019, a heated hearing on Menashi's nomination was held before theSenate Judiciary Committee.[17] During his hearing, Menashi was criticized by senators from both parties for refusing to answer their questions regarding the legal advice he gave on the Trump administration's immigration policies.[18][19] He was also questioned about an article he had written in theUniversity of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law onethnonationalism andIsrael, in which he argued that Israel's Jewish identity was consistent with its status as a liberal democracy.[20]
On November 7, 2019, his nomination was reported out of committee by a 12–10 vote.[21] On November 13, 2019, theUnited States Senate invokedcloture by a 51–44 vote.[22] On November 14, 2019, his nomination was confirmed by a 51–41 vote.[23] He received his judicial commission on the same day.[24] He filled the seat vacated byDennis Jacobs, who assumedsenior status on May 31, 2019.[25]
InHenry v. County of Nassau (2d Cir. 2021), Menashi ruled that a prohibition on firearms ownership based on an ex parteorder of protection violates theSecond Amendment.[26]
InUnited States v. Donzinger (2d Cir. 2022), Menashi dissented when the Second Circuit upheld the corporate prosecution of environmental lawyerSteven Donziger.[27][28] Menashi wrote that the prosecution, which had been initiated by a judge, violated theseparation of powers put forth by theUnited States Constitution. The Supreme Court denied review of the case, but JusticeNeil Gorsuch suggested that courts considering the appointment of their own prosecutors should "consider carefully Judge Menashi's dissenting opinion in this case."[29][30][31][32]
InFuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization andWaldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization (2d Cir. 2024), Menashi dissented from the Second Circuit's denial of en banc review in a decision in which it had concluded that it did not havepersonal jurisdiction over thePalestine Liberation Organization or thePalestinian Authority in suits concerning deaths and injuries to United States citizens from terrorist attacks overseas. The U.S. Supreme Court later granted certiorari to review the case and reversed the Second Circuit in a9-0 decision holding the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority were properly subject to personal jurisdiction.See Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 606 U.S. ___, No. 24-20 (June 20, 2025). Both the Court’s opinion and Justice Thomas’ concurrence cited Judge Menashi’s dissenting opinion from the Second Circuit.[33]
InBrinkmann v. Town of Southold (2d Cir. 2024), Menashi dissented to argue that the town ofSouthold, New York had violated the takings clause of theFifth Amendment by usingeminent domain to stop the property owners from building a hardware store on the land.[34][35]
InUnited States v. Benjamin (2d Cir. 2024), Menashi wrote an opinion reinstatingbribery andfraud charges against former Lieutenant Governor of New YorkBrian Benjamin. The government had alleged that Benjamin promised to allocate $50,000 in state funds to a non-profit organization controlled by a real estate developer in exchange forcampaign contributions from the developer. Menashi opined that the indictment alleged an explicitquid pro quo.[36]
Menashi has ruled in favor ofDonald Trump in several cases.
InCREW v. Trump (2d Cir. 2020), Menashi dissented when theen banc Second Circuit allowed anemoluments clause lawsuit to proceed against Trump, arguing that the plaintiffs lackedstanding to bring their suit.[37][38]
InBehar v. DHS (2d Cir. 2022), Menashi upheld theSecret Service's decision not to release information about persons who met with then-candidate and President-elect Trump under theFreedom of Information Act.[39]
Menashi has taken a broad view of First Amendment protections.
InA.H. v. French (2d Cir. 2021), Menashi authored a decision that prevented Vermont from barring Christian school students from a statewide tuition program.[40][41]
InKravitz v. Purcell (2d Cir. 2023), Menashi ruled in favor of a Jewish prisoner'sreligious liberty claim when prison officials prevented the inmate from observing aJewish holiday. Menashi's opinion concluded that "a prisoner claiming a violation of the right to the free exercise of religion underSection 1983 need not make a showing of a substantial burden."
InSlattery v. Hochul (2d Cir. 2023), Menashi wrote an opinion prohibiting thestate of New York from enforcing a state labor law that would have required a pro-life "crisis pregnancy center" to hire employees who had previously had abortions. Menashi held that this violated the center's First Amendment right tofreedom of expressive association.[42]
InUnited States v. Perez (2d Cir. 2021), Menashi wrote separately to argue that illegal immigrants do not possessSecond Amendment rights because they are not citizens.[44]
InBhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland (2d Cir. 2022), Menashi ruled that thedistrict court did not have jurisdiction to review animmigration judge's order that denied an immigrant's request for withholding of removal when that immigrant illegally re-entered the U.S. after having been removed previously.[45][46]
InOjo v. Garland (2d Cir. 2022), Menashi dissented from the court's decision to vacate the denial of asylum for a Nigerian citizen convicted of wire fraud and identity theft charges. Menashi would have upheld the denial of asylum.[47]
InSchiebel v. Schoharie Central School District (2d Cir. 2024), Menashi wrote the majority opinion ruling that a school can be liable for discrimination underTitle IX by being deliberately indifferent to the truth or falsity of asexual misconduct allegation against a male student.[48]
InSoule v. Connecticut Assoc. of Schools, (2d Cir. 2023) (en banc), Menashi wrote separately to argue that a state athletic association could have been on notice that its policy, which allowedtransgender athletes to participate in women's sports, violated Title IX.[49]
Menashi, Steven (2023)."The Prudent Judge".Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy: Per Curiam. (symposium on the jurisprudence of JusticeSamuel Alito).
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.