Latest 4 Cases: Emamian v. Rockefeller University (Civil Rights), Jackson v. Roberts (Copyright), Rampersaud v. Barr (Criminal Law)

Don’t Blame the SCOTUS DACA Ruling for Difficulties Undoing Trump’s Damage

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf responds to claims that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last term invalidating the Trump administration’s effort to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program license President Trump to take actions that will be difficult for a future Democratic administration to undo. Dorf argues that characterizing the ruling as a win for Trump and his executive power is far-fetched, and we should instead be concerned with the long-lasting damage to the environment and our nation’s foreign policy caused by the Trump administration.

Read More

Emamian v. Rockefeller University

Docket: 19-127

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: Debra Ann Livingston

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

After a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on her claim of intentional discrimination on the basis of race or national origin by her former employer, Rockefeller University, both plaintiff and the University appealed the final judgment of $250,000 in back pay and $200,000 in remitted emotional distress damages. The Second Circuit affirmed and rejected both parties' claims of error. The court held that, at bottom, any evidence in the trial record that could even arguably justify punitive damages is sparse, and the failure to instruct the jury on such damages accordingly did not cut to the core of plaintiff's case; plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the failure to instruct the jury on punitive damages constituted an error so serious and flagrant that it goes to the very integrity of the trial; the requirement of intentional discrimination was clearly expressed in the jury instructions and thus the court rejected the University's contention to the contrary; there was no prejudicial error in the formulation of the verdict form necessitating a new trial; the district court had the power to rescind its discharge order and, in the circumstances of this case, its decision to do so was a proper exercise of discretion; and the court rejected the University's challenge to the second verdict form.

Jackson v. Roberts

Docket: 19-0480

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: Leval

Areas of Law: Copyright, Entertainment & Sports Law, Intellectual Property

Plaintiff Curtis James Jackson III, the hip-hop recording artist known as 50 Cent, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Defendant William Leonard Roberts II, the hip-hop recording artist known as Rick Ross, on the grounds that Jackson's claim of violation of the Connecticut common law right of publicity is preempted by the Copyright Act. The complaint alleged that, on the mixtape entitled Renzel Remixes, Roberts' use of Jackson's voice performing "In Da Club," as well as of Jackson's stage name in the track title identifying that song, violated Jackson's right of publicity under Connecticut common law. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that Jackson's claim is preempted under the doctrine of implied preemption. In this case, Jackson's Connecticut right of publicity claim does not seek to vindicate any substantial state interests distinct from those furthered by the copyright law, and the policy considerations justifying the doctrine of implied preemption prevail. In the alternative, the court held that Jackson's claim as to the use of his voice on the mixtape is preempted by the express terms of section 301 of the Copyright Act. The court explained that the gravamen of Jackson's right of publicity claim, to the extent it is based on the use of the "In Da Club" sample, is not the use of his identity but rather the use of the copyrighted work itself, and that the focus of his claim therefore comes within the subject matter of copyright. Furthermore, to the extent that Jackson's right of publicity claim is based on the reproduction of a copyrighted work embodying Jackson's voice, that claim is preempted by section 301 because (1) its focus is Roberts' use of a work that falls within the "subject matter of copyright" and (2) it asserts rights that are sufficiently equivalent to the rights protected by federal copyright law.

Rampersaud v. Barr

Docket: 19-825

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: Leval

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner removable as an aggravated felon for having been convicted of fraud involving a loss to the victims exceeding $10,000 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). Defendant was convicted of insurance fraud and grand larceny, and was ordered to pay $77,199 in restitution without any indication as to whether the restitution order was for the benefit of victims of the insurance fraud, the grand larceny, or both. The court held that the BIA relied on inadequate analysis in concluding that the $77,199 restitution order, on its own, showed that petitioner's insurance fraud caused more than $10,000 in victim losses. In this case, where petitioner was convicted of two separate crimes and ordered to pay an overarching restitution amount without indication of what part, if any, was for the insurance fraud, the court held that the restitution order, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that more than $10,000 in losses were caused by the insurance fraud count as distinct from the larceny count. Furthermore, the BIA gave no explanation why it concluded that more than $10,000 of the restitution award was attributable to losses caused by the insurance fraud. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

United States v. Anastasio

Docket: 18-421

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: Susan Laura Carney

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of racketeering conspiracy (RICO conspiracy count) and two counts of murder in aid of racketeering (VCAR murder counts) based on his involvement with the 10th Street Gang in Buffalo, New York and his role in the 2006 murders of two individuals. The jury also found that defendant was guilty of two special factors that, as part of the RICO conspiracy count, charged defendant with intentionally causing the deaths of the two individuals in violation of New York Penal Law 125.25(1) and 20.00. The Second Circuit held that the evidence was insufficient to convict defendant of aiding and abetting the two murders. However, the court held that the government adequately proved defendant's knowing agreement to participate in a racketeering enterprise; there was no error in the district court's Batson ruling; and there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of defendant's motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's RICO conspiracy count; reversed the VCAR murder counts and the murder enhancements of the RICO conspiracy count; and remanded for resentencing.