Monday, November 11, 2013

What Are the Remaining Stakes in the NYC Stop-and-Frisk Litigation?

By Mike Dorf

In two recent DoL posts (here and here), Anil Kalhan described the extraordinary nature of the recent ruling by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit removing SDNY Judge Scheindlin from any further role in the litigation over NYC's stop-and-frisk policy.  I agree with Professor Kalhan's analysis but here I want to ask a basic question that has been puzzling me and presumably puzzling readers as well:  Given that Mayor-elect deBlasio will abandon the Bloomberg/Kelly stop-and-frisk policy regardless of how the litigation turns out, does any of this matter?  The short answer is maybe, but for reasons that readers may find surprising.

Obviously the case matters for the legacy of the Bloomberg Administration.  With their time in office drawing to a close, Mayor Bloomberg and Police Comm'r Kelly no doubt wish to remove what they regard as a major blemish from their record: The legal ruling by Judge Scheindlin that one of their chief crime suppression tactics was a massive violation of the civil rights of thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers.  By characterizing Judge Scheindlin's ruling as the product of bias, they hope to discredit her ruling--and as Professor Kalhan discussed over the weekend, the lame-duck Bloomberg Administration wasted little time in arguing that the appeals court's decision to take the rest of the case from Judge Scheindlin fatally undermines the basis for the merits and remedy rulings she already issued.

But if legacy polishing explains the motives of the Bloomberg Administration, it does not explain the panel's actions.  Let us assume that a majority of the appeals court panel believes that Judge Scheindlin's rulings on the merits and remedy were erroneous.  It has been widely assumed that the panel was trying to rush the appeal through so that it could reverse Judge Scheindlin's ruling before deBlasio does withdraw the appeal.  But why?

There is no precedential significance of losing the opportunity to reverse a district court ruling because federal district court rulings have no binding precedential effect, not even in the same district court and not even for the same district judge in a later case involving different parties.  So the apparent rush to reverse Judge Scheindlin's opinion is a rush to reverse a nullity: If the appeals court reverses before deBlasio takes office, deBlasio ends stop-and-frisk on his own authority and the district court ruling is reversed; if deBlasio withdraws the appeal before the panel has a chance to rule, then deBlasio follows the district court ruling (by ending stop-and-frisk) but the ruling has the same non-precedential effect it always had.  So either way, stop-and-frisk ends and the district court ruling itself does no damage (from the perspective of the appeals court).

Nonetheless, there are three ways in which the circumstances would be somewhat different depending on whether the panel gets a chance to opine on the merits and the remedy:

(1) If the appeals court actually reverses and vacates Judge Scheindlin's ruling then that ruling will have less persuasive value than it otherwise would, simply because an opinion that must be cited as "reversed and vacated on appeal" comes with a red flag.  To be sure, a federal district court or a federal appeals court outside of the 2d Circuit could still cite Judge Scheindlin's opinion.  It's not as though an appeals court that reverses a district court ruling dispatches an army of Winstons Smith to scrub the history books clean of the district court ruling.  But still, as a symbolic matter, a case will seem more persuasive if it hasn't been officially reversed.

(2) The 2d Circuit panel could itself set a precedent on the merits by reversing the district court.  Whereas Judge Scheindlin's opinion wasn't binding as a matter of precedent, an appeals court ruling reversing her opinion would be--at least in the 2d Circuit.

Despite these real considerations, it's still hard to figure out what to make of the appeals court's apparent zeal to undermine Judge Scheindlin because, as Professor Kalhan has noted, by the time the panel issued its disqualification decision, it had already made clear that the merits and remedy appeals would extend well into the deBlasio Administration.  Perhaps the panel will now grant the City's request that the underlying rulings be reversed forthwith, but if it was going to do that, it probably would have done so when it took the case away from her in late October.

(3) Still, there is a remaining practical difference between an appeals court reversal and a de Blasio decision to throw in the towel.  If the appeals court reverses Judge Scheindlin, then Mayor de Blasio can still eliminate stop-and-frisk.  However, if the district court ruling is still in effect (because the appeal has been dropped), then de Blasio can go further.  He can then take actions in compliance with the district court's remedial order even though he would lack the authority to take those actions in the absence of a judicial order.  This issue lurks in the motion last week by the police unions, seeking to intervene on appeal on the City's side.  The unions argue, among other things, that certain of the remedial measures Judge Scheindlin ordered would violate police union contracts.  The Mayor cannot violate such contracts on his own authority but he can do so if necessary to comply with a federal district court ruling vindicating constitutional rights.

Should the police unions be permitted to intervene?  So long as the City itself is a party, the right answer is probably: who cares?  But once the City drops out (due to the change of Mayor), the unions might argue that they are entitled to continue to defend the old stop-and-frisk policy on appeal because they have a continuing stake in avoiding being subject to the remedial order.

At first blush, this argument for continued police union appellate standing even after Mayor deBlasio drops his appeal looks like it runs into trouble with Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year in the Prop 8 case.  If the sponsors of a ballot initiative lack standing to defend the initiative once the political authorities have opted not to defend it against constitutional challenge on appeal (as the Court held), then why should police unions have standing to defend a government policy once the government authorities have opted not to defend it against constitutional challenge on appeal?

The answer, if there is one, would go like this: the sponsors of Prop 8 were trying to assert an interest in representing the sovereign, but the unions are asserting their members' own personal interest in having the City honor its contractual obligations.  That may not be enough of an interest to warrant standing on appeal, but it does make the case somewhat different from Perry.

Indeed, even if the police unions lack standing to pursue the appeal once the City drops its appeal, the unions may be entitled to go back into court and collaterally challenge Judge Scheindlin's initial ruling in a new lawsuit.  In Martin v. Wilks, the Supreme Court allowed white firefighters to bring a collateral challenge to an affirmative action program that had been established as part of a consent decree to settle a civil rights suit, on the ground that neither the white firefighters nor parties who effectively represented their interests had been parties to the original suit, and under longstanding principles, judgments only have preclusive effect on parties and those in privity with parties.  To be sure, the 1991 Civil Rights Act purported to overrule Martin, but only with respect to employment cases, not as a general matter. Accordingly, if the police unions do indeed have a cognizable interest, they might be able to re-open Judge Scheindlin's remedial ruling down the road, even if they are denied the right to pursue an appeal now.

To be clear, none of the foregoing remotely justifies the appeals panel's rush to judgment against Judge Scheindlin--but it may begin to clarify what's at stake as a practical matter.


AF said...

"By characterizing Judge Scheindlin's ruling as the product of bias, [the Bloomberg administration] hope[s] to discredit her ruling . . .

But if legacy polishing explains the motives of the Bloomberg Administration, it does not explain the panel's actions."

I would argue that a desire to discredit Judge Scheindlin's ruling is a far more plausible explanation for the panel's decision than solicitude toward the contractual rights of the police union.

Michael C. Dorf said...

AF: I don't disagree at all. I'm just suggesting that the police unions' case may be the best procedural vehicle for the panel to do so.

AF said...

Got it. I wonder if the deBlasio administration and the plaintiffs could work out a settlement that moots the plice union's concerns.

Hashim said...

Mike -- isn't the more direct practical consequence the existence of the court-appointed monitor, etc.? Even DiBlasio presumably wouldn't voluntarily accede to a police monitor or the various other remedies ordered by the dct. So wiping out those remedies might be what's motivating CA2 to take action before the new mayor drops the appeal -- stop-and-frisk may be gone regardless, but not so for many of the dct's remedies.

Michael C. Dorf said...

Hash: I meant to lump the court-appointed monitor in with the sorts of things the unions are challenging. I actually am not sure about the politics. DeBlasio might well be willing or perhaps even eager to have a court-appointed monitor tell him he and his police dep't have to do things he would like to do but may be worried that he can't do on his own. (When I say things he "can't" do, I mean things he either lacks the freestanding legal authority to do or for which he has the legal authority but faces practical/politcal obstacles.)

Lowry said...

My first response when I heard about the panel's action was, "Was Judge Scheindlin up for a promotion?" I don't keep close tabs on upcoming vacancies, but in today's atmosphere this looks a bit like a pre-emptive Borking. Paint the Judge a partisan, then leverage that to stop any confirmation vote: see, she's a partisan because a panel said so.

Even if one's ultimate determination is that the decision was not political, or not personal (as some have pointed out, it seems that they just don't like her), then I'd still like to see that determination arrived at with a full consideration by unbiased parties who would know. Occam's razor cuts deep. Otherwise it's like Sherlock Holmes ruling out telekinesis, voodoo, and lupus before addressing a bullet hole.

I guess my question is: I'm not that familiar with this panel, other than that the Clinton-appointee is also on the FISA court. Is anyone other than conspiracy theorists seriously discussing whether this was a political hit?

Thankfully, this mishegoss shines a spotlight on why New Yorkers were so thrilled to get rid of Bloomberg and repudiate his "legacy." The rest of the country didn't understand why we were so eager to dump our sugardaddy. Subject for an article: "The Institutional Reverberations of Little-Man Rage."

Joe said...

Charming word of the day: "mishegoss" ... calling Kory Stamper!

Paul.K said...

DeBlasio might well be willing or perhaps even eager to have a court-appointed monitor tell him he and his police dep't have to do things he would like to do but may be worried that he can't do on his own. Fifa 14 Ultimate Team Coins
League of Legends boost

奇堡比 said...


奇堡比 said...


aminos lahragui said...

Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot

فوائد الزنجبيل

فوائد الرمان

فوائد الحلبة

فوائد البصل

فوائد الزعتر

فوائد زيت السمسم

علاج البواسير

فوائد اليانسون

فوائد الكركم

قصص جحا

صور يوم الجمعه

علامات الحمل

تعريف الحب

حياة البرزخ

فوائد الزبيب

amine lahragui said...

thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه

aminos lahragui said...

thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلى الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورته حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق