Correspondent
Federal courthouse correspondent, covers civil rights, employment discrimination, housing rights, and Second Amendment disputes.
The Second Circuit affirmed a conviction for unlawful reentry, ruling that defects in a Notice to Appear did not strip the Immigration Court of jurisdiction. The court also rejected an equal protection challenge, finding insufficient evidence that the illegal reentry statute was enacted with discriminatory intent.
The Ninth Circuit held that dismissing a prisoner's first habeas motion because the claims were legally non-cognizable constitutes an adjudication on the merits, barring any later-filed motion on those same grounds as successive. However, the court transferred a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the first motion to the district court, as that specific claim could not have been raised previously.
The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of Abderrahmane Farhane's habeas petition, holding that his counsel was not ineffective for failing to warn him about denaturalization risks. The court ruled that civil denaturalization is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea, meaning the Sixth Amendment does not require defense attorneys to advise on such immigration consequences.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals, holding that an immigration judge violated due process by rigidly enforcing a filing deadline without allowing a window filing. The court found the proceedings fundamentally unfair because the deadline was ambiguous and the judge refused to accept the application while still on the bench.
The Second Circuit held that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires a whistleblower to prove an employer acted with retaliatory intent to discriminate against them. Because the district court failed to instruct the jury on this essential element, the verdict is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial.
The Second Circuit held that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires a whistleblower to prove an employer acted with specific retaliatory intent to establish an adverse employment action claim. Because the district court failed to instruct the jury on this essential element, the court vacated the verdict and remanded for a new trial.
