A federal appellate court on Thursday granted a stay in the landmark police stop-and-frisk ruling in New York City, and removed the trial judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, from the case.Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly must be high-fiving. And, all over New York City, young men or color are once again about to be eyed for random stops just for the hell of it. Or, as police put in their reports, "furtive movements."
The ... Second Circuit ruled that Judge Scheindlin “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the “appearance of partiality..."
In a two-page order, the panel ... also criticized Judge Scheindlin for granting media interviews and making public statements while the case was pending before her.
The judges ordered that the stop-and-frisk lawsuit be reassigned to another judge. The Second Circuit ruling instructs the new judge to put a hold to “all proceedings and otherwise await further action” from the Second Circuit
Fuck it all to hell.
2:01 PM PT: Update:
In a shocking blow against critics of racial profiling, and a triumph for Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, a federal appeals court has halted the stop-and-frisk reforms ordered by the judge who ruled that aspects of the controversial policing policy were unconstitutional.
A federal court of appeals dealt privacy, civil rights, and freedom advocates two deep blows minutes ago when it blocked a federal judge’s ruling in a pivotal New York City “stop and frisk” case. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals not only blocked the lower court’s ruling that the NYPD must institute changes to the controversial “stop and frisk” program, but it removed the judge from the case.
October 31, 2013 — The New York Civil Liberties Union this afternoon promised to fight a federal appeals court’s decision postponing the remedy proceedings in New York City’s stop-and-frisk abuse case. The decision, issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, did not overturn the landmark ruling that the NYPD’s abuse of stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional.
“The NYCLU is appealing today’s decision,” said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman. “There is overwhelming evidence that the stop-and-frisk regime is unconstitutional and out of control – just ask any black or brown New Yorker. We expect the next mayoral administration to make reforming stop-and-frisk a top priority, and we are confident New York City will soon see a day when all New Yorkers’ basic rights are protected and respected.”
A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the New York Police Department can resume its controversial stop-and-frisk policy as other appeals in the case are heard....
The appeals panel ordered the case to be assigned to a different judge, who will implement the appeals court's "mandate staying all proceedings and otherwise await further action by the Court of Appeals on the merits of the ongoing appeals," the ruling said.
Bill de Blasio said he was "extremely disappointed" in today's appeals court ruling that puts a halt on reforms to the NYPD's stop and frisk policy.
"We shouldn't have to wait for reforms that both keep our communities safe and obey the Constitution," De Blasio said in a statement released through his campaign.
"We have to end the overuse of stop and frisk -- and any delay only means a continued and unnecessary rift between our police and the people they protect."
“Justice delayed is justice denied, and this delay to reforming the city’s stop-and-frisk program will be to the detriment of communities and New Yorkers throughout our city who have routinely had their rights violated and been made to fear both crime and the police. While the Bloomberg administration refuses to respect the rights of the communities most impacted by their quota-driven stop-and-frisk policy, the people of our city have expressed a desire for change to these policies within the democratic process. New Yorkers know that true safety is not achieved by violating the rights of their law-abiding neighbors and that reforming stop-and-frisk will help to improve public safety in our city so all New Yorkers are safe and treated fairly by the police. We are confident that justice will ultimately be provided through true reforms to what the Bloomberg administration turned into the largest local racial profiling program in the nation.”
We are dismayed that the Court of Appeals saw fit to delay the long-overdue process to remedy the NYPD’s unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices, and we are shocked that they cast aspersions on the professional conduct of one of the most respected members of the federal judiciary and reassigned the case. The City carried out a whisper campaign against Judge Scheindlin but never once raised any legal claims of bias, even in its papers to the Court of Appeals. That, unprompted, they should reassign the case from a judge deeply steeped in the issues for the last 14 years, who gave the City every opportunity to defend itself in the course of this litigation, is troubling and unprecedented.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was unwise to put a stay on the necessary remedies Judge Shira Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan ordered in August in response to the civil rights violations of New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy. And it overreached in taking the extraordinary step of removing Judge Scheindlin from the long-running litigation...
Given all the damage done by this program, the next mayor should end this saga by withdrawing the city’s appeal and instituting the cogent reforms laid out by Judge Scheindlin.
Judge Scheindlin issued a brief, dignified statement in her own defense. She explained that she took the case as a related case because plaintiffs alleged that the city had violated an order that she herself had issued in a prior case challenging the city’s stop-and-frisk practices. That is an entirely reasonable basis for identifying a case as related. The “related case” rule permits district court judges to take cases that are related to cases they have previously decided, in order to encourage efficient resolution of disputes. Judge Scheindlin was well within her authority in taking the case.Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 8:10 AM PT:
Apparently lacking irony or shame, the court of appeals panel hearing the motion in Floyd departed from the usual practice of allowing the full appeal to be assigned to a random panel and instead ordered that it would hear the full appeal itself. Nor did it offer any explanation for why it was departing from the usual course of business. Evidently when it comes to related cases, what’s sauce for the district court is not sauce for the court of appeals.
Regarding the judge’s allegedly problematic statements to the media, the judge is her own best defender. Here’s what she said in her statement after the court of appeals rebuked her:
All of the interviews identified by the Second Circuit were conducted under the express condition that I would not comment on the Floyd case. And I did not. Some of the reporters used quotes from written opinions in Floyd that gave the appearance that I had commented on the case. However, a careful reading of each interview will reveal that no such comments were made.