Latest 4 Cases: In Re: 21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc. (Bankruptcy), Williams v. Korines (Civil Rights), UnitedHealthcare of New York, Inc. ...

Trump’s Dubious Use of Clemency Relies on Its Most Conventional Idiom

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on President Trump’s commutation of the sentence of Roger Stone. Sarat observes the pattern of Trump using his exclusive power of clemency to help those who, like Stone, committed crimes that show disdain for the legal process, and he argues that Trump seems “incapable of grasping the meaning of mercy or of understanding its place in a decent society.”

Read More

In Re: 21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc.

Docket: 19-1725

Opinion Date: July 20, 2020

Judge: Dennis G. Jacobs

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy

The Second Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's order capping appellant's claim for certain incentive payments promised by his former employer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 502(b)(7), which limits employee claims for damages "resulting from the termination of an employment contract." The court held that appellant's right to receive the payments was accelerated as a result of his termination, and thus section 502(b)(7) applied to his claim. In this case, pursuant to appellant's contract, portions of the incentive bonuses were not in fact due prior to termination, but were accelerated as the contract expressly provides. Therefore, the court held that the plain language of section 502(b)(7) requires that the court apply it to cap appellant's claim for accelerated payments.

Williams v. Korines

Docket: 18-3050

Opinion Date: July 20, 2020

Judge: Peter W. Hall

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed suit against various corrections officials alleging that (1) New York DOCCS Rule 105.13 banning gang insignia or materials is unconstitutionally vague as applied to his photographs depicting family and friends wearing blue and making hand signs and (2) his placement in a special housing unit for six months following a prison disciplinary hearing determination that he had violated Rule 105.13 by possessing those photographs violated his due process rights. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, holding that Rule 105.13 provides adequate standards for prison guards to determine whether pictures of people wearing blue and intentionally making "C" hand signs are prohibited. In this case, no reasonable prison guard could have doubted that plaintiff's possession of photographs of people wearing blue and making "C" hand signs violated Rule 105.13 and, therefore, there was no danger that the Rule's enforcement would be arbitrary with regard to plaintiff's photographs. The court also held that plaintiff received a hearing that provided the minimal requirements of procedural due process. The court considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit.

UnitedHealthcare of New York, Inc. v. Lacewell

Docket: 18-2583

Opinion Date: July 20, 2020

Judge: Raymond Joseph Lohier, Jr.

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

Healthcare insurers filed suit challenging an emergency regulation promulgated in 2017 by New York's Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services that would have significantly reduced the amount of risk adjustment funding to which plaintiffs were entitled in 2017 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and subsequent years using HHS's federal methodology. The Second Circuit held that New York's emergency regulation was preempted by the ACA and HHS's regulations. The court held that New York's regulation interferes with, indeed reverses, some of the central "criteria and methods" that HHS, acting within its statutory authority, established for implementing a risk adjustment program and methodology. Accordingly, the court reversed the portion of the district court's judgment that dismissed plaintiffs' preemption claim and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor on that claim. The court also vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' takings and exaction claims, remanding for further proceedings.

United States v. Atilla

Docket: 18-1589

Opinion Date: July 20, 2020

Judge: Richard J. Sullivan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), bank fraud, and money laundering in connection with a scheme to evade U.S. economic sanctions against Iran. Defendant is a Turkish national and former Deputy General Manager of Turkey's state-owned bank. The court held that, although the district court provided a partially erroneous jury instruction on the IEEPA statute, the error was harmless given that the jury was properly instructed on an alternative theory of liability for which the evidence was overwhelming. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the remaining convictions; the statute that prohibits defrauding the United States, 18 U.S.C. 371, reaches defendant's conspiracy to obstruct the United States' enforcement of its economic sanctions laws; and, even assuming that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the phone call recording and transcript, the error was harmless.