Trials & Litigation

Ouster of 3 federal appeals court judges sought by plaintiffs in hard-fought NYC stop-and-frisk case

Will three federal appeals court judges who booted a federal district court judge from overseeing a lawsuit about New York City police stop-and-frisk practices get a taste of their own medicine?

In a brief (PDF) filed Monday, lawyers for the plaintiffs challenging the city’s stop-and-frisk practices ask not only for en banc review of the appellate panel’s Oct. 31 ruling by the New York City-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but that the three judges on the appellate panel be removed from the case, the New York Law Journal (sub. req.) reports.

The filing says the panel rushed to judgment in determining that Judge Shira Scheindlin had created an appearance of impartiality in her comments on the case and called its “gratuitous” decision to remove her from the case a “perfect storm of procedural irregularity,” the legal publication recounts.

Scheindlin has previously protested her ouster from the case in a brief filed by law professors that also seeks en banc 2nd Circuit review of the panel’s Oct. 31 ruling.

See also: “2nd Circuit stays NYC ‘stop-and-frisk’ ruling, boots judge from case” “Stop-and-frisk judge fights her removal from case; brief says she was ‘completely blindsided’”

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy and the ABA Code of Conduct.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.