In answer to Scott H. Greenfield regarding the Second Circuit’s treatment of Judge Scheindlin

Scott H. Greenfield (SHG) is a criminal defense lawyer from New York. He has a popular blog entitled “Simple Justice.”  He recently wrote about my post entitled “Cheap Shot” which dealt with Second Circuit removal of Judge Shira Scheindlin from the “stop and frisk” cases.  His post was entitled “The Elephant in the Second Circuit.”

The Context

SHG thought that I went too easy on the Second Circuit even though I was (and remain) very critical of the short order kicking Judge Scheindlin off the case. Essentially, he thought I was credulous and that I failed to address the real motivations of the judges on the Second Circuit. Wearing my blogger hat, he wanted me to honestly explain “why” the judges did what they did.

In this post, I propose to answer SHG’s “why” question because I think I now have a plausible explanation, although it is obviously speculative. But before I provide my answer to the “why” question, I reprint SHG’s post in full below so the reader has the complete context:

It appears that there isn’t a single, credible voice that wasn’t astounded and offended by the Second Circuit’s needless and brutal sua sponte attack on Judge Shira Scheindlin in the process of granting a stay to the City in Floyd v. City of New York.

Even in the New York Times’ Room for Debate, there was agreement that this was an outrageous smack, a gratuitous beating of a judge who was denied the opportunity to explain, and perhaps had nothing to explain anyway. It was seen as undermining judicial independence in a hotly political issue, but worse, an insertion by the Circuit panel, Judges Jose Cabranes, Barrington Parker and John Walker, for no conceivably legitimate purpose other than to teach Judge Scheindlin a lesson.

Why? Why would they do such a thing?

When Judge Richard Kopf posed the question at his blog, he noted that he would follow up with his thoughts after others expressed theirs. This struck me as utterly fascinating. Sure, I knew what I thought about the ruling, but the Senate never confirmed me. I eagerly awaited Judge Kopf’s thoughts:

A Cheap Shot.

As I have said before, federal trial judges know their place. We are the TTT of the federal judiciary. When the Circuit tells us to jump, we do so even if we don’t much like it. But, in return, we expect only one thing: no cheap shots.

The Second Circuit’s spontaneous decision, apparently without briefing and coming out of the blue, was factually predicated upon a “relatedness” question mentioned in the record before the Court of Appeals and in the footnoted NYT article referred to by the Circuit. But, if that was really the reason for the trial judge’s removal, the decision was both wrong, and, worse, unnecessary.

No question about it. But that’s easy. Everyone agrees that this was a cheap shot, a low blow, a needless, gratuitous smack. But why? The three judges on the panel are neither stupid, inexperienced nor impetuous. They did not do this thoughtlessly. This was deliberate, and they certainly knew the reasons why not to do it, and did it anyway. So why?

Unintentionally I am sure, the panel of highly regarded and very smart judges on the Second Circuit that too hastily disqualified Judge Scheindlin, herself a highly respected trial judge, fractured the unwritten but critical social compact between federal trial judges and federal appellate judges that should bind those judges together as they seek to fulfill a common purpose. In short, “eating your young” is not a good way to foster collegiality.

Unintentionally? Seriously, Judge? Are you really saying that?*

Frankly, this whole debacle is just mystifying to me.

You lost me. This was where the rubber meets the road, where the question of how far out on a limb you would go to speak truth to power would be answered. I hoped for an answer, because without it, I’m left to my own devices, my own fertile imagination.

While you’re no “right-wing nutjob,” you also do not see the system through the eyes of a criminal defense lawyer. It was important to know what your eyes saw so that those of us who sit at the table farthest from the jury can learn whether our greatest fears are justified.

To say you’re “mystified” is a cop-out (no pun intended). Some have speculated that this ruling comes from a “reliably right-wing panel” sending a message to a judge perceived as insufficiently kind to law enforcement and unduly inclined to stymie those who elevate control over civil rights. Are they wrong? Are they the nuts?

Let’s get real here: Judge Scheindlin is the government’s worst nightmare. She gives the defense, the accused, the black, the Hispanic, a fair shake. She has demonstrated throughout her career that she will not let agents or assistants roll over the Constitution. They despise her for not being a team player, and dread a case getting sent to her courtroom.

As for Local Rule 13, the related case rule, she did nothing that isn’t done daily. Worse yet, most of the time the related case rule works to the government’s favor, as judges who sign search and wiretap warrants get the cases when the takedown comes, making it essentially impossible to obtain neutral review of their grant of the warrants. The government survives on this ploy, and we all know it. This isn’t about the Circuit panel beating up on the local rule.

So why? We all agree that the panel judges aren’t a bunch of clueless dopes who didn’t get what they were doing, or didn’t appreciate (in this case in particular) the significance of their ruling in political terms. This case is huge, millions of New Yorkers huge, a mayoral campaign huge. There is no way they didn’t appreciate it. There is no way you don’t appreciate it.

To say you’re “mystified” is to hide. While it’s fair to say you didn’t have a drink with Jose Cabranes and chat about his purpose, it’s not fair to leave it at “mystified,” as this goes to a core value of integrity of the judiciary in general and the Second Circuit in particular.

Why, Judge? Why?

And you came up with nothing.

* Subsequent to posting, it was suggested that I’m being “unduly harsh” on Judge Kopf. I hope not, as that is not at all my purpose. Rather, I am of the view, based on his writings, that he won’t be put off by my lack of obsequiousness; as I first wrote about engaging Judge Kopf, it’s awkward. While I won’t allow him to be attacked here, I hope that he is open to challenge in his blawger bathrobe instead of requiring the formality of his judge’s robes.

Whether I’m correct will be seen. But I add this to point out that I don’t question out of disrespect, but just the opposite. I hope this doesn’t offend the judge.

Scott H. Greenfield, The Elephant in the Second Circuit, Simple Justice  (November 5, 2013).

Kopf’s Answer to SHG’s “Why” Question

I will be direct and will try not to equivocate, but understand, please, that my answer amounts to a guess.  I will outline my thinking and then answer SHG’s “why” question. Here goes:

*After the post that SHG criticizes, I learned of the following article: Katherine Macfarlane, The Danger of Nonrandom Case Assignment: How the Southern District of New York’s ‘Related Cases’ Rule has Shaped the Evolution of Stop-and-Frisk Law, (LSU August 22, 2013).  I called my readers’ attention to this post in the comment section. See, e.g., comment in response to Orin Kerr, November 4, 2013 at 5:55 am.

*Unlike the short and unexpected order removing Judge Scheindlin, Ms. Macfarlane’s article is a public and intellectually coherent analysis of the “relatedness” question in the precise matter before the Second Circuit and it presents an arguable case for a lack of impartiality on the part of Judge Scheindlin in the precise matter before the Second Circuit. McFarlane’s 45-page article appeared shortly (2 months) before the Second Circuit issued the surprise ruling. It was not cited by the Second Circuit, but the Second Circuit did cite three sources (newspaper articles) cited by McFarlane.

*After the post about which SHG is critical, I received an unsolicited e-mail from MaFarlane on Sunday, Nov 3, 2013 at 5:13 PM. She kindly gave me permission to reprint the contents of it on Monday Nov 4, 2013 at 8:57 AM. I did so on November 4, 2013 at 10:43 am. See here. To make things easy, I reprint the e-mail again, to wit:

Dear Judge Kopf,

In light of your recent blog post, I thought you might be interested in my attached article, posted on SSRN in August, and accepted for publication in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law in September. It’s about the SDNY’s related cases rule and its role in stop-and-frisk litigation. Curiously, three of the non-legal sources I cited to–an article by Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker, an article by Joe Goldstein in the New York Times, and an article by Mark Hamblett in the New York Law Journal–were also cited by the Second Circuit in its recent order kicking Judge Scheindlin off the stop-and-frisk cases. The “appearance of impartiality” idea also pops up in my article. This is either an incredible coincidence, or else, a clerk read my SSRN post. Either way, I hope you find my article of interest.

The Second Circuit’s decision to reassign the cases makes no sense to me, as Judge Scheindlin merely followed the local rules. As to whether the local rules invite manipulation of the case assignment process is an entirely different question that my article attempts to tackle.

Best regards,

Katherine A. Macfarlane
Teaching Fellow and Assistant Professor of Professional Practice
LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center

*While Macfarlane’s piece provided a detailed justification for a fair critique of the “related” case rule and Judge Scheindlin’s use (and possible abuse) of the rule, Scheindlin’s conduct had long been the subject of debate in New York legal circles.  As one commentator to this blog later put it, “In New York legal circles (especially around Foley Square), . . . Judge Scheindlin’s abuse of the related-case protocol and her interviews raised serious partiality concerns [and were well known]. The press pieces [Macfarlane] cites were widely read and discussed at the time of their publication, especially the NYT piece about how Judge Scheindlin leveraged Daniels to get not only Floyd but also Davis and Ligon.” Anonymous says: November 5, 2013 at 12:09 pm.

*The coming New York mayoral election threatened to moot the appeal before the Second Circuit and deprive the Second Circuit of a chance to flog Scheindlin and the “related” case rule.

*All of the judges–from Judge Shira Scheindlin to the appellate judges, Judges Jose Cabranes, Barrington Parker and John Walker–are highly regarded.  See, e.g., Almanac of the Federal Judiciary–a rich (and expensive) resource providing detailed accounts of what knowledgeable lawyers say privately about each federal judge. (Federal judges typically deny reading the Almanac but don’t believe them.)  In short, I remain fully confident in the bona fides of all the judges involved in this sad story.

*The answer to SHG’s “why” question is this:  The appellate judges were furious and thought they needed to send an unmistakable message. But it is not the message skeptics think it was. The removal of Judge Scheindlin was driven by a sort of rage over the perceived manipulation of the local rule on “relatedness.” It was intended as a deterrent to any trial judge, including especially Scheindlin, who games the system by screwing with the Holy Grail of judicial neutrality–the random assignment of cases. I suspect that indignation had been bubbling under the surface at the Second Circuit for a very long time and it erupted without warning, much like a volcano, under the increased pressure of the “stop and frisk” cases that were likely to become moot. The intemperate and easily misunderstood order of removal was not, however, borne out of a Machiavellian scheme to take sides in the litigation before the Second Circuit or to silence Judge Scheindlin (or any other federal trial judge) on the merits of civil rights cases “properly” before her but yet to come.

*In sum, genuine anger over Judge Scheindlin’s use and perceived abuse of the “relatedness” rule rather than some hidden calculation worthy of the Prince is the solution that best fits Occam’s razor.

RGK

More on “relatedness,” Judge Scheindlin and the Second Circuit

I received an e-mail from Katherine A. Macfarlane, Teaching Fellow and Assistant Professor of Professional Practice, LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center. She has kindly allowed me to reprint it and I do so below. But first, Katherine’s work shows that academic research can materially assist the rest of us. I hope she continues her great work.

The e-mail reads as follow, and note, please, the text that I have highlighted in red:

Dear Judge Kopf,

In light of your recent blog post, I thought you might be interested in my attached article, posted on SSRN in August, and accepted for publication in the Michigan Journal of Race & Law in September. It’s about the SDNY’s related cases rule and its role in stop-and-frisk litigation. Curiously, three of the non-legal sources I cited to–an article by Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker, an article by Joe Goldstein in the New York Times, and an article by Mark Hamblett in the New York Law Journal–were also cited by the Second Circuit in its recent order kicking Judge Scheindlin off the stop-and-frisk cases. The “appearance of impartiality” idea also pops up in my article. This is either an incredible coincidence, or else, a clerk read my SSRN post. Either way, I hope you find my article of interest.

The Second Circuit’s decision to reassign the cases makes no sense to me, as Judge Scheindlin merely followed the local rules. As to whether the local rules invite manipulation of the case assignment process is an entirely different question that my article attempts to tackle.

Best regards,

Katherine A. Macfarlane
Teaching Fellow and Assistant Professor of Professional Practice
LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center

RGK

A cheap shot

Yesterday, I asked: What do you think about the Second Circuit’s removal of Judge Shira Scheindlin? Today, I will provide the short version of my views.

As I have said before, federal trial judges know their place. We are the TTT of the federal judiciary. When the Circuit tells us to jump, we do so even if we don’t much like it. But, in return, we expect only one thing: no cheap shots.

The Second Circuit’s spontaneous decision, apparently without briefing and coming out of the blue, was factually predicated upon a “relatedness” question mentioned in the record before the Court of Appeals and in the footnoted NYT article referred to by the Circuit. But, if that was really the reason for the trial judge’s removal, the decision was both wrong, and, worse, unnecessary.

Judge Scheindlin was holding a hearing where the plaintiffs sought to reopen a case. The judge thought the case could not properly be reopened, but a new case could be filed as a “related case.” She said so on the record. The NYT article mentioned the judge’s statement. Apparently, the case that the judge suggested be “related” when filed is one of the cases before the Circuit. The Second Circuit thought the judge’s statement reflected a lack of impartiality.

The reason we have relatedness rules in the district courts is to avoid treating similar cases dissimilarly and because it wastes judicial resources by duplicating effort when two judges deal with similar issues.  The failure to enforce relatedness rules can cause a huge problem for the lawyers, the trial judge and the appeals court. The fact that Scheindlin told the lawyers that they could file a “related” case is exactly what I would have done. Indeed, I have done something similar in an extraordinarily high-profile case.

I authored both “partial birth abortion” decisions ultimately decided by Supreme Court. Dr. LeRoy Carhart brought both cases. In the second case, dealing with the federal statute, my chambers was notified by Dr. Carhart’s lawyers in advance that they would be filing suit and seeking an immediate emergency temporary restraining order the moment the President signed the bill. In turn, my chambers notified the United States Attorney’s office that suit would soon be filed and an emergency hearing would take place quickly thereafter.

I was then Chief Judge, and I instructed the Clerk to treat any such new case “as related” to the first Carhart case. That the cases were “related,” as Dr. Carhart’s lawyers later indicated when they filed the second suit, was simply not debatable. Indeed, the federal statute purported to expressly rebut my earlier factual findings. But, here’s the pertinent point for this discussion:

I affirmatively acted to intervene in the random assignment of cases, for among other reasons, because our local rule required enforcement and because requiring a new judge to take the nearly identical second abortion case would have unnecessarily burdened that judge who would have had to “reinvent the wheel” with little or no time to get up to speed. By then, I knew more about gynaecology than any man, who is not a doctor, has any right to know. Simply put, trial judges should be concerned with “relatedness”–for Christ’s sake, it’s our job.

Let me give you another example. I now have a very high-profile case–actually a series of cases that have now been consolidated. They became terribly screwed up because the lawyers did not initially “relate” them and the Clerk’s office failed to catch the problem. Those omissions resulted in conflicting decisions by my colleague and me on the same facts regarding qualified immunity as it pertained to the same defendants. Both went up to the Circuit at the same time as separate cases. Crazy! Costly! Wasteful! Inconsistent! Unnecessary! Embarrassing!

So, the Second Circuit’s removal of Judge Scheindlin because she told the parties to “relate” cases is dubious at best. Actually, I was going to write that it was “bullshit,” but decided against that description.

What then is going on? The Second Circuit judges are excellent judges and I am sure they are sincere in their concern. But the reason they have given for their unprecedented action is laughable. Something else must be going on. We are all left to speculate what the real reason might be. What is worse, we are confronted with the unhappy result that the appellate judges themselves are now open to the assertion (wholly rejected by me) that it is they who have a political or policy agenda.

And the startling thing is that this whole damn thing was unnecessary. The appellate judges could have granted the stay, and in the stay order provided that the trial judge “shall take no action inconsistent with the stay in this case or in any related cases.” That would have preserved the status quo while avoiding the unnecessary criticism of the trial judge.

If the appellate judges were worried about the judge’s impartiality, they could have called for a full exploration of that matter at a later date. At the very least, following a more regular process would have shielded the appellate judges from the assertion that they were acting as political hacks rather than impartial appellate judges unconcerned with whose ox was being gored. Frankly, this whole debacle is just mystifying to me.

Let me sum up. Unintentionally I am sure, the panel of highly regarded and very smart judges on the Second Circuit that too hastily disqualified Judge Scheindlin, herself a highly respected trial judge, fractured the unwritten but critical social compact between federal trial judges and federal appellate judges that should bind those judges together as they seek to fulfill a common purpose. In short, “eating your young” is not a good way to foster collegiality.

RGK

What do you think about the Second Circuit’s removal of Judge Shira Scheindlin?

Judge Scheindlin is a New York federal trial judge who has taken senior status.* She was handling high profile cases involving New York’s “stop and frisk” practices. She issued an opinion providing remedial relief and an injunction to the folks who were challenging the police department’s practices, and up the case went to the Second Circuit. On Thursday, without ruling on the merits of the appeal, and acting on its own without a request from the appellants, the Second Circuit removed Scheindlin.  The Court stated that the trial judge had violated the Code of Conduct and failed in her responsibility to uphold the appearance of impartiality (1) because of her statements to the parties regarding “related” cases and (2) because of interviews she gave to the media. The Second Circuit’s short opinion is here. Liberal legal commentators exploded in outrage. See, for example, here and here. The judge has responded as well. See here.

I’ll give my views later. For now, let me know what you think?

RGK

*I don’t know the judge. Nor do I know any of the Circuit judges on the Second Circuit panel who removed the judge.

%d bloggers like this: