By Rich Bockmann
Lawyers who successfully argued against the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices asked the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals Monday to reconsider a decision made by a three-judge panel to remove the district judge who ruled on the landmark case.
Attorneys with the Center for Constitutional Rights claim the panel of judges on the Second Circuit overstepped their authority when they removed Manhattan Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin from the civil rights case she had overseen for years.
“The removal of Judge Scheindlin was done by a perfect storm of procedural irregularity. The appellate panel cast aspersions upon the professional conduct of one of the most respected members of the federal judiciary — and thus inappropriately cast doubt on her legal rulings — while itself taking an unprecedented step that no party requested, of which no party was notified, and without providing the parties an opportunity to be heard,” CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy said. “The facts conclusively show that the district judge engaged in no unethical conduct whatsoever and that her decision finding the city liable for widespread constitutional violations and racial profiling is based on overwhelming evidence presented at trial.”
After the city appealed Scheindlin’s August ruling that the NYPD had unconstitutionally targeted black and Latino men for stops, the Second Circuit panel last month removed the judge from the case and ordered a temporary hold on her ordered reforms as the appeal is considered.
The panel of judges said Scheindlin, in the least, gave a suggestion of impropriety by steering a related case toward herself and through interviews she gave to the press.
Scheindlin disagreed with the panel’s interpretation of her actions and last week her lawyer asked the three judges to either reconsider their move or pass the case on to the full circuit.
On Monday, the CCR filed a motion arguing that the panel rushed to judgement by removing Scheindlin without contacting the relevant parties.
“Because the panel did not seek to obtain, nor did it know, all relevant facts and circumstances, it could not have made this determination,” lawyers wrote.
The center also argued that the appeals judges acted against custom by assigning themselves to hear the appeal and asked that a new panel of judges be randomly selected to hear the proceedings.
The city, meanwhile, has filed a motion asking the appeals court to completely vacate Scheindlin’s orders.
“At a minimum, the district court’s misconduct makes it reasonable to question the impartiality of the district court orders, and at a maximum represents a violation of appellant’s due process rights to a neutral arbiter and to present a defense,” a motion filed Nov. 8 reads. “In either case, the district court orders must be vacated.”
Reach reporter Rich Bockmann by e-mail at rbockmann@cnglocal.com or by phone at 718-260-4574.
