Overview
The Second Circuit today stayed Judge Scheindlin's decisions in the recent stop-and-frisk cases, and removed her from the cases, because it found she improperly urged plaintiffs' counsel to file suit as "related" to a 1999 case previously assigned to her and because of certain media interviews:
Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 2 (“A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”); see also Canon 3(C)(1) (“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . . .”), and that the appearance of partiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s “related case rule,” see Transfer of Related Cases, S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y. Local Rule 13(a), and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court. Accordingly, we conclude that, in the interest, and appearance, of fair and impartial administration of justice, UPON REMAND, these cases shall be assigned to a different District Judge, chosen randomly under the established practices of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.The media interviews referenced are here (NYLJ), here (AP), and here (New Yorker). Our prior posts on the case are here.
