United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Second Circuit
Court of Appeals
Judgeships
Posts: 13
Judges: 13
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Debra Livingston
Active judges: Joseph Bianco, Maria Araujo Kahn, Eunice Lee, Debra Livingston, Raymond Lohier, Steven Menashi, Sarah Ann Leilani Merriam, William Nardini, Alison J. Nathan, Michael H. Park, Myrna Pérez, Beth Robinson, Richard Sullivan Senior judges: Jose Cabranes, Guido Calabresi, Susan L. Carney, Denny Chin, Dennis Jacobs, Amalya Kearse, Pierre Leval, Gerard Lynch, Jon Newman, Barrington Parker, Jr., Rosemary Pooler, Reena Raggi, Robert Sack, Chester Straub, John Walker, Richard Wesley

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is a federal appellate court with appellate jurisdiction. It hears appeals from all of the circuit courts within its jurisdiction and its rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Appeals are heard in the Thurgood Marshall Federal Courthouse in New York City.

Four judges of the Second Circuit went on to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. John Marshall Harlan II was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1955 by Dwight Eisenhower, Thurgood Marshall was appointed in 1967 by Lyndon Johnson, and Sonia Sotomayor was appointed in 2009 by Barack Obama.

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are no current vacancies on the Second Circuit, out of the court's 13 judicial positions.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominees for this court.

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Debra Livingston	George W. Bush (R)	May 17, 2007 -	Princeton University, 1980	Harvard Law School, 1984
Raymond Lohier	Barack Obama (D)	December 20, 2010 -	Harvard College, 1988	New York University School of Law, 1991
Richard Sullivan	Donald Trump (R)	October 17, 2018 -	College of William and Mary, 1986	Yale Law, 1990
Joseph Bianco	Donald Trump (R)	May 13, 2019 -	Georgetown, 1988	Columbia Law, 1991
Michael H. Park	Donald Trump (R)	May 13, 2019 -	Princeton University, 1998	Yale Law School, 2001
Steven Menashi	Donald Trump (R)	November 14, 2019 -	Dartmouth College, 2001	Stanford Law School, 2008
William Nardini	Donald Trump (R)	November 14, 2019 -	Georgetown University, 1990	Yale Law School, 1994
Eunice Lee	Joe Biden (D)	August 16, 2021 -	The Ohio State University, 1993	Yale Law School, 1996
Beth Robinson	Joe Biden (D)	November 5, 2021 -	Dartmouth College, 1986	University of Chicago Law School, 1989
Myrna Pérez	Joe Biden (D)	November 12, 2021 -	Yale University, 1996	Columbia Law School, 2003
Alison J. Nathan	Joe Biden (D)	March 30, 2022 -	Cornell, 1994	Cornell Law, 2000
Sarah Ann Leilani Merriam	Joe Biden (D)	September 23, 2022 -	Georgetown University, 1993	Yale Law School, 2000
Maria Araujo Kahn	Joe Biden (D)	March 10, 2023 -	New York University	Fordham University School of Law, 1989

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

Below is a display of the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democrat appointed: 7
• Republican appointed: 6

Senior judges

Senior status is a classification for federal judges at all levels who are semi-retired. Senior judges are Article III judges who, having met eligibility through age and service requirements, continue to serve on federal courts while typically hearing a reduced number of cases. Some senior judges, however, elect to retain a full caseload after taking senior status. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, senior judges "typically handle about 15 percent of the federal courts' workload annually." The date listed under assumed office in the table below reflects the date that the judge took senior status.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Rosemary Pooler	Bill Clinton (D)		Brooklyn College, 1959	University of Michigan Law School, 1965
Jon Newman	Jimmy Carter (D)	July 1, 1997 -	Princeton University, 1953	Yale Law School, 1956
Amalya Kearse	Jimmy Carter (D)	June 11, 2002 -	Wellesley College, 1959	University of Michigan Law School, 1962
Pierre Leval	Bill Clinton (D)	August 16, 2002 -	Harvard College, 1959	Harvard Law School, 1963
John Walker	George H.W. Bush (R)	September 30, 2006 -	Yale University, 1962	University of Michigan Law School, 1966
Chester Straub	Bill Clinton (D)	July 16, 2008 -	St. Peter's College, 1958	University of Virginia School of Law, 1961
Guido Calabresi	Bill Clinton (D)	July 21, 2009 -	Yale University, 1953	Yale Law School, 1958
Robert Sack	Bill Clinton (D)	August 6, 2009 -	University of Rochester, 1960	Columbia Law School, 1963
Barrington Parker, Jr.	George W. Bush (R)	October 10, 2009 -	Yale University, 1965	Yale Law School, 1969
Richard Wesley	George W. Bush (R)	August 1, 2016 -	State University of New York, Albany, 1971	Cornell Law School, 1974
Gerard Lynch	Barack Obama (D)	September 5, 2016 -	Columbia College, 1972	Columbia Law School, 1975
Reena Raggi	George W. Bush (R)	August 31, 2018 -	Wellesley College, 1973	Harvard Law School, 1976
Dennis Jacobs	George H.W. Bush (R)	May 31, 2019 -	City University of New York, Queens College, 1964	New York University School of Law, 1973
Denny Chin	Barack Obama (D)	June 1, 2021 -	Princeton University, 1975	Fordham University School of Law, 1978
Susan L. Carney		September 27, 2022 -	Harvard University, 1973	Harvard Law School, 1977
Jose Cabranes		March 9, 2023 -	Columbia University, 1961	Yale Law School, 1965

Senior judges by appointing political party

Below is a display of the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democrat appointed: 10
• Republican appointed: 5

Former chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in an Article III circuit or district court, or on the United States Court of International Trade, a judge must be in active service and hold seniority over the court's commissioned judges who are 64 years of age or under, have served one year or more, and have not previously served as chief judge.

In the event that no judge on the court meets those qualifications, the youngest judge in regular active service aged 65 years or more and who has served as a judge for one year or more shall become chief judge. If no judge meets those qualifications, the judge holding seniority in active service who has not served as chief before shall become the chief judge.

The chief judge serves for a term of seven years until another judge becomes eligible to serve in the position. No judge is permitted to serve as chief judge after reaching the age of 70 years unless no other judge is qualified to serve.

Unlike the chief justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of their term and does not create a vacancy on the court by the fact of their promotion.

On the United States Court of Federal Claims, the chief judge is selected by the president of the United States. The judge must be less than 70 years of age. A chief may serve until they reach age 70 or until another judge is designated by the president as the new chief judge. If the president selects a new chief judge, the former chief judge may continue active service on the court for the remainder of their appointed term.

Robert Katzmann - (2013-2020) Dennis Jacobs - (2006-2013) John Walker - (2001-2006) Ralph Winter - (1997-2000) Jon Newman - (1993-1997) Thomas Meskill - (1992-1993) James Oakes - (1988-1992) Wilfred Feinberg - (1980-1988) Irving Kaufman - (1973-1980)

Henry Friendly - (1971-1973) Joseph Lumbard - (1959-1971) Charles Edward Clark - (1954-1959) Harrie Brigham Chase - (1953-1954) Thomas Walter Swan - (1951-1953) Learned Hand - (1948-1951)

Former judges

For information on the former judges of the Second Circuit, see former federal judges of the Second Circuit.

Jurisdiction

Map of the Second Circuit. Click on a district to find out more about it.

The Second Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard in one of its subsidiary districts. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the circuit justice for the Second Circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's territory comprises the states of Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. The court has appellate jurisdiction over the United States district courts in the following federal judicial districts:

• District of Connecticut
• Eastern District of New York
• Northern District of New York
• Southern District of New York
• Western District of New York
• District of Vermont

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2024. Click [show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.

Caseload statistics explanation
Term	Explanation
Cases filed and terminated	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columns Cases filed and Cases terminated.
Average time from filing to disposition	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to date of disposition (acquittal, sentencing, dismissal, etc.). The chart below reflects the table columns Median time (Criminal) and Median time (Civil).
Starting case load	The number of cases pending from the previous calendar year.
Cases filed	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year.
Cases terminated	The total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year.
Remaining cases	The number of civil and criminal cases pending at the end of a given year.
Median time (Criminal)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. In criminal cases, the date of disposition occurs on the day of sentencing or acquittal/dismissal.
Median time (Civil)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition.
Three-year civil cases	The number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year.
Vacant posts	The number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant.
Trial/Post	The number of trials completed divided by the number of authorized judgeships on the court. Trials include evidentiary trials, hearings on temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions.
Source: United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit caseload stats, 2010-2023
Year	Appeals Filed	Appeals Terminated	Pending Appeals	Terminations on the Merits (per Active Judge)	Procedural Terminations (per Active Judge)	Total Written Decisions (per Active Judge)	Number of Judgeships	Number of Sitting Senior Judges	Number of Vacant Judgeship Months	Median Time From Filing Notice of Appeal to Disposition
2010	5,459	5,761	4,382	535	143	270	13	12	40	13
2011	5,661	5,175	4,873	484	117	218	13	13	15	12
2012	5,310	5,532	4,653	538	56	223	13	11	0	12
2013	4,996	5,976	3,684	524	138	219	13	11	0	11
2014	4,988	5,181	3,522	524	68	201	13	9	0	11
2015	4,398	4,539	3,379	454	77	181	13	10	0	10
2016	4,519	4,576	3,329	447	68	182	13	11	9	11
2017	4,351	4,037	3,651	439	44	190	13	11	24	11
2018	4,029	3,843	3,841	402	44	182	13	11	25	11
2019	4,497	4,162	4,176	368	66	180	13	14	18	12
2020	4,408	4,359	4,232	360	118	165	13	13	0	13
2021	3,976	4,621	3,592	381	137	149	13	15	19	14
2022	3,965	3,848	3,712	266	70	123	13	15	0	13
2023	3,585	3,488	3,801	270	29	126	13	15	0	14
Average	4,582	4,650	3,916	428	84	186	13	12	11	12

History

Court history

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was established by the United States Congress in 1891 through the Evarts Act of 1891, which established the first nine appeals circuits. Over the years, ten additional seats were added to the court resulting in a total of thirteen seats.

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Second Circuit:

Year	Statute	Total Seats
March 3, 1891	26 Stat. 826	3
April 17, 1902	32 Stat. 106	4
December 12, 1910	36 Stat. 539	5 (1 temporary, at-large post established under the Commerce Court)
January 1, 1916	Temporary post expired	4
January 17, 1929	45 Stat. 1081	5
July 1, 1929	36 Stat. 539	6 (1 temporary, at-large post established under the Commerce Court)
May 31, 1938	52 Stat. 584	7 (1 temporary, at-large post established under the Commerce Court)
September 6, 1940	Temporary post expired	6
May 19, 1961	75 Stat. 80	9
October 20, 1978	92 Stat. 1629	11
July 10, 1984	98 Stat. 333	13

Reversal rate

See also: SCOTUS case reversal rates (2007 - Present)

Since 2007, SCOTUS has released opinions in 1,250 cases. Of those, it reversed a lower court decision 891 times (71.3 percent) while affirming a lower court decision 347 times (27.8 percent).

In that time period, SCOTUS has decided 95 cases originating from the Second Circuit, affirming in 31 cases and reversing in 64 cases, for a reversal rate of 67.4 percent. As of the end of the 2023 term, of the Article III circuits—the ordinal circuits, the D.C. Circuit, and the Federal Circuit—the court with the lowest rate of overturned decisions is the Fourth Circuit at 62.1 percent.

Noteworthy cases

The following are noteworthy cases heard before this court. To suggest cases we should cover here, email us. To read opinions published by this court, click here.

• Second Circuit overturns judge's ruling in Citigroup case (2014)

Click for summary→

When Judge Jed Rakoff refused to accept the settlement reached between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup in 2011, he abused his discretion by applying the wrong legal standard, according to a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge Rakoff refused the settlement because the SEC failed to prove the truth of the allegations involved, which the Second Circuit said is not a requirement for acceptance of a settlement agreement. Instead, a judge must look at the potential settlement for fairness, reasonableness, and whether the public interest would be served by the settlement. The Second Circuit remanded the case back to Judge Rakoff to review the settlement again. Articles: New York Times, "Overruled, Judge Still Left a Mark on S.E.C. Agenda," June 4, 2014 HuffingtonPost, "U.S. Appeals Court Says Judge Wrongly Rejected SEC-Citigroup Fraud Settlement," June 4, 2014

• Apple's challenge to e-book antitrust monitor (2014)      Judge(s):Gerard Lynch, Pierre Leval, and Guido Calabresi (U.S. v. Apple, Inc., 1:12-cv-02826-DLC)	Click for summary→
On January 21, 2014, Judge Raymond Joseph Lohier, Jr. granted a temporary stay as to the work performed by Michael Bromwich, the court-appointed monitor in the Apple e-book antitrust case. The stay was to remain in effect until a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit was available to decide whether Bromwich should be removed as monitor. In the underlying case, Judge Denise Cote found in July 2013 that Apple conspired with online publishers to fix the prices of e-books. She appointed Bromwich to oversee and monitor the company’s compliance with federal antitrust laws in October 2013. In an earlier motion filed by Apple, the company claimed that Cote’s appointment of a monitor in a civil antitrust case was unprecedented. Attorneys for Apple contested Bromwich’s hourly fee of $1,100, alleging that because of the “extremely broad powers” Cote conferred upon him, he was able to overreach in his investigations such that they bordered on interfering with the company’s daily operations. Cote denied Apple’s request to remove Bromwich as monitor just days before Lohier issued the temporary stay. In his ruling, Lohier noted that Apple’s request for Bromwich’s permanent ouster would be heard “as soon as possible” by an appellate panel. Lohier's order is available here. On February 10, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit composed of Judge Gerard Lynch and Senior Judges Pierre Leval and Guido Calabresi rejected Judge Lohier's stay and restored Michael Bromwich's ability to perform his duties as Apple's e-book antitrust monitor, with the understanding that Apple may pursue a further appeal to remove Bromwich from his position. In the order, the judicial panel noted that according to the government, Judge Cote's initial order was to be "interpreted narrowly." As a result, Lynch, Leval, and Calabresi agreed that as antitrust monitor, Bromwich was only to "assess the appropriateness of the compliance programs adopted by Apple and the means used to communicate those programs to its personnel." The Second Circuit panel went on to limit Bromwich's authority, empowering him to "demand only documents relevant to his authorized responsibility . . . and to interview Apple directors, officers and employees only on subjects relevant to that responsibility."

• ADA's speech disruptive enough to uphold his firing (2013) (Sacha v. Sedita, 12-4507-cv)	Click for summary→
On November 23, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, consisting of Chief Judge Robert Katzmann, Judge Rosemary Pooler, and Senior Judge Pierre Leval, upheld the dismissal of Mark Sacha’s lawsuit against Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita III. In the underlying case, Sedita fired Sacha from his position as Assistant District Attorney following Sacha's public contention that Sedita failed to prosecute G. Steven Pigeon on allegations of election law violations (specifically, the alleged laundering of a $10,000 campaign contribution). Sacha claimed he was fired in retaliation for his criticism of Sedita and filed suit in December 2009, alleging that his First Amendment rights had been violated. Sedita filed a motion for summary judgment, and Chief Judge William Skretny of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted it in October 2012, citing the fact that his statements to the press were made in his capacity as an ADA, not as a private citizen, and thus his free speech rights had not been violated. That decision is available here. Sacha appealed Skretny's ruling to the Second Circuit, where the three-judge panel affirmed Skretny's ruling, but on alternate grounds, noting that "Sacha’s speech was sufficiently disruptive to justify terminating his employment as an assistant district attorney." Sacha vowed to file a further appeal, claiming that the Second Circuit's three-judge panel had a conflict of interest in hearing the case.

• District Court "stop-and-frisk" ruling remains intact (2013)      Judge(s):John Walker, Jose Cabranes and Barrington Parker (Floyd v. City of New York)	Click for summary→
On October 31, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, composed of Judge Jose Cabranes and Senior Judges John Walker and Barrington Parker, removed Judge Shira Scheindlin from Floyd v. City of New York and put the remedies proposed by the judge on hold. The previous court order was stayed until an appeal was heard by the panel. Scheindlin was removed from the case as a result of interviews with the media in May 2013 which made the court question her impartiality. In response to the accusation that she violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges, Scheindlin said: “ The interviews . . . were conducted under the express condition that I would not comment on the Floyd case. I did not. Some of the reporters used quotes from written opinions in Floyd that gave the appearance that I had commented on the case. However, a careful reading of each interview will reveal that no such comments were made. ” On November 22, 2013, the judicial panel refused in a per curiam decision to vacate Judge Scheindlin's prior ruling which struck down the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. The judges denied motions filed by New York City to transfer the court's October 2013 stay of Scheindlin's ruling into its vacation, and further denied as moot motions filed by Scheindlin in opposition to the City's previously described motions. Judge Scheindlin's "stop-and-frisk" decision still stands. Background In August 2013, Scheindlin ruled that the New York Police Department's (NYPD) "stop-and-frisk" rule, which the NYPD credited with saving lives, disregarded the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Scheindlin also found that officers used racial profiling during the process, unfairly targeting minorities.

• VT prison labor case (2012)      Judge(s):Barrington Parker, Richard Wesley and Robert Katzman	Click for summary→
On August 3, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the lower court decision and held that a suit could continue which alleged that the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington, Vermont violated the 13th amendment by requiring an individual to work in the laundry room for $0.25 an hour. The suit was filed by Finbar McGarry who alleged that during his time pending trial in the facility, he was forced to work 14-hour shifts, three days a week, and was punished with solitary confinement if he refused. He filed the suit a month before his release, requesting $11 million in damages. U.S. District Judge Garvan Murtha threw out the case claiming that McGarry did not prove that the forced work was akin to African American slavery, which the act was originally designed to protect against. The three-judge appeals court panel, composed of Robert Katzmann, Richard Wesley, and the writing judge Barrington Parker, disagreed, writing in their opinion, "The Amendment was intended to prohibit all forms of involuntary labor, not solely to abolish chattel slavery." In addition, the court held that McGarry's pretrial status required that the state treat him differently as he was not yet convicted and the charges were later dropped. The case was remanded back to Judge Murtha for further evaluation.

• NY City smoking deterrent posters (2012)      Judge(s):Peter Hall, Gerard Lynch and Denny Chin (94th St. Grocery v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Health, 11-91-cv)	Click for summary→
On July 10, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of Judge Jed Rakoff, ruling that federal regulations preempted a city ordinance that required cigarette distributors to post graphic photos of cigarette-related illnesses at the point of sale. The court held that the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempted the local law, thus rendering the local ordinance unconstitutional. Philip Morris USA alongside two other manufacturers, two major retailers, and two trade unions challenged this city law in federal court in 2011. Despite admitting the risks of smoking, Rakoff agreed with the cigarette producers, stating in his opinion, "Even merchants of morbidity are entitled to the full protection of the law." The Second Circuit concurred, though a three-judge panel believed that the city could launch its own anti-smoking campaign using the images, but could not require retailers to do it. The case was heard by Judges Peter Hall, Gerard Lynch, and Denny Chin, with Chin writing the opinion of the court.

• Town meeting prayer case (2012)      Judge(s):Guido Calabresi, Richard Wesley, Gerard Lynch (Galloway and Stephens v. Town of Greece, et al, 10-3635-cv)	Click for summary→
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 100,000-resident town of Greece, NY, violated a constitutional ban against favoring one religion over another, in what was deemed a significant test to the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. The decision, issued on the May 17, 2012, stated that by opening nearly every monthly town meeting with Christian-centric prayers, the town was favoring Christianity over other religions. The meetings in question took place every month between 1999 and 2007, and from January 2009 to June 2010 in the suburb of Rochester, New York. Who was to deliver the invocation was decided each month by a town employee who chose clerics or laypeople from a local published guide of churches that did not include any places of worship outside of the Christian denomination. After complaints from two town residents, four of the 12 meetings in 2008 were opened by invocations from other faiths. The suit, first brought in 2010, was originally decided in favor of the city of Greece. The lower court ruled that there was no indication that one faith was favored over another, or that the town purposely excluded other faiths. The decision was overturned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling that "the town's process for selecting prayer-givers virtually ensured a Christian viewpoint.” The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States in 2013. In 2014, the Court reversed the Second Circuit's ruling.

• Citigroup liability case (2011)      Judge(s):John Walker, Jose Cabranes and Chester Straub (In re Citigroup ERISA Litigation, 662 F. 3d 128)	Click for summary→
Judge John Walker authored the Second Circuit Court's opinion in a ruling declaring that Citigroup was not liable to workers who lost money on their 401(k) plans due to the company's exposure to toxic debt. The court split 2-1 in the decision, with Judge Jose Cabranes agreeing with Judge Walker and Judge Chester Straub dissenting. The case was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by workers who claimed that Citigroup should not have offered bank stock in its retirement plans because it knew its subprime mortgage exposure made the stock a dangerous investment. The court disagreed, and Judge Walker wrote that the workers did not show that Citigroup "either knew or should have known that Citigroup was in the sort of dire situation that required them to override plan terms in order to limit participants' investments in Citigroup stock." Marc Machiz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he expected the case to be reheard by the full Second Circuit Court.

• Hiram Monserrate case (2010)      Judge(s):Gerard Lynch, Dennis Jacobs, and Jane Restani (Monserrate v. New York State Senate, 599 F. 3d 148)	Click for summary→
District Judge William Pauley denied a request by former New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate (D) to stop a decision made by the New York Senate to expel him on February 9, 2010. Monserrate was expelled after being convicted of domestic violence towards his girlfriend, which was a misdemeanor. The case was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appellate court judges, Gerard Lynch, Dennis Jacobs, and Jane Restani, ruled that the district court "did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Monserrate Appellants failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of any of the claims they press on appeal. We thus need not reach any of the other arguments advanced by the parties. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction."

• Fed Reserve disclosure (2009)      Judge(s):Dennis Jacobs, Pierre Leval, and Peter Hall (BLOOMBERG, LP v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF FED. RESERVE, 601 F. 3d 143)	Click for summary→
On August 24, 2009, District Judge Loretta Preska ruled that the Federal Reserve must disclose the recipients of emergency loans and aid during the economic downturn. Bloomberg News took court action after the nation's central bank refused to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. According to the network, Bloomberg News hoped that if it made public the recipients of bailout money, it would deter more bailout money from being handed out. As part of her order, Preska gave the Federal Reserve five days to hand over the documents. On August 28, 2009, Preska delayed her order requiring the Federal Reserve to disclose bailout recipients. Preska also allowed the Fed to file an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was subsequently argued in front of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on January 11, 2010, and decided on March 19, 2010. The appellate court judges, Dennis Jacobs, Pierre Leval, and Peter Hall, upheld the decision reached by Judge Preska.

• Seinfeld case (2009)      Judge(s):Reena Raggi and Peter Hall (LAPINE v. Seinfeld, No. 09-4423-cv)	Click for summary→
District Judge Laura Swain tossed out a copyright infringement lawsuit against Jessica Seinfeld on September 10, 2009, after the judge found that a recipe in a cook book did not infringe on a competing author. Missy Chase Lapine sued the wife of comedian Jerry Seinfeld claiming a chicken breast recipe infringed on her similar recipe and competed unfairly. The judge found that because the styles of the books differed there was no evidence that Jessica Seinfeld committed plagiarism. The judgment can be read here. The case was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The two appeals court judges, Reena Raggi and Peter Hall, ruled against Missy Chase Lapine and affirmed Swain's decision. In 2010, Missy Chase Lapine sued Jerry Seinfeld for slander as a result of an interview Mr. Seinfeld participated in on the David Letterman television show. The New York Supreme Court dismissed the claim as being without merit in 2011. The judgment can be read here.

• Ricci v. DeStefano (2008)      Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Ricci v. DeStefano, 530 F.3d 87 (2008))	Click for summary→
Sotomayor joined a finding in favor of the city of New Haven rejecting a lawsuit filed by 17 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter claiming race discrimination when the city of New Haven denied promotions following a promotion examination that yielded no black candidates eligible for advancement. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision stating the decision to cancel the promotions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which guarantees equal employment opportunity. The Court found that Sotomayor's ruling would allow the city to "experiment" with tests until it found one that produced "a more desirable racial distribution."

• Riverkeeper Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007)      Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Riverkeeper Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 475 F3d 83 (2007))	Click for summary→
Sotomayor ruled in favor of environmental group Riverkeeper, which challenged an EPA ruling on the Clean Water Act's "best technology" rule involving power plants' need to intake water as weighed against the risk to aquatic life in surrounding waters. In her ruling, she held that "Congress has already specified the relationship between cost and benefits in requiring that the technology designated by EPA be the best available." Sotomayor's decision was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote where the Court held that the EPA could not weigh the costs of changes to power plants versus the value of organisms in dollar terms, but could consider only what costs "may reasonably be borne" by power plants when determining the best technology rule available.

• Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (2002)      Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F3d 183 (2002))	Click for summary→
In a case involving the conservative Mexico City Policy, announced by Ronald Reagan (R) in 1984 and subsequently rescinded by President Bill Clinton (D) and reauthorized by President George W. Bush (R), Sotomayor found that the federal government was within its rights to deny federal aid to foreign organizations that support or perform abortions. She dismissed claims by the pro-choice Center for Reproductive Law and Policy that the Mexico City Policy violated the First Amendment right to association as well as Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. In her finding, Sotomayor cited the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 which authorizes the President "to furnish assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, for voluntary population planning" as well as multiple Supreme Court precedents. In her decision, Sotomayor wrote, "the Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation (2000)      Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation, 229 F3d 374 (2000))	Click for summary→
In this case, Sotomayor found that an inmate living in a halfway house could sue a government contractor for forcing him to climb five flights of stairs despite a heart condition after the inmate suffered a heart attack, fell down the stairs, and injured himself. Sotomayor held "extending Bivens liability to reach private corporations furthers [its] overriding purpose: providing redress for violations of constitutional rights." Bivens was a 1971 Supreme Court case that allowed some people whose rights had been violated by federal agents to sue. The Supreme Court overturned Sotomayor's decision in a 5-4 ruling stating that only individual agents, not corporations, could be sued for such violations.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court

This section focuses on cases the U.S. Supreme Court heard that originated in this court. To suggest cases we should cover here, email us.

2024-2025 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

The following case was scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2024-2025 term.

2024-2025 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 2nd Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn	TBD	TBD	TBD
Delligatti v. United States	TBD	TBD	TBD
Cunningham v. Cornell University	TBD	TBD	TBD
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman	TBD	TBD	TBD

2023-2024 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

The following case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2023-2024 term.

2023-2024 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 2nd Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed and remanded	9-0
Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC	John Roberts	vacated and remanded	9-0
Cantero v. Bank of America	Brett Kavanaugh	vacated and remanded	9-0
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.	Neil Gorsuch	reversed and remanded	5-4
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P.	Sonia Sotomayor	vacated and remanded	9-0
McIntosh v. United States	Sonia Sotomayor	affirmed	9-0
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo	Sonia Sotomayor	vacated and remanded	9-0

2022-2023 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

The following cases were scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2022-2023 term.

2022-2023 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 2nd Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith	Sonia Sotomayor	affirmed	7-2
MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC	Ketanji Brown Jackson	vacated and remanded	9-0
Percoco v. United States	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	9-0
Ciminelli v. United States	Clarence Thomas	reversed and remanded	9-0
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States	Brett Kavanaugh	affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part	9-0
Lora v. United States	Ketanji Brown Jackson	vacated and remanded	9-0
Samia v. United States	Clarence Thomas	affirmed	6-3

2021-2022 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2021-2022 term.

2021-2022 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 2nd Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Department of Homeland Security v. New York	TBD	TBD	TBD
Thompson v. Clark	Brett Kavanaugh	reversed and remanded	6-3
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett	Clarence Thomas	reversed and remanded	6-3
Golan v. Saada	Sonia Sotomayor	vacated and remanded	9-0

2020-2021 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2020-2021 term.

2020-2021 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 2nd Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir	Chief Justice John Roberts	affirmed	8-0
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System	Amy Coney Barrett	vacated and remanded	8-1
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (Decided without argument)	Per curiam	Application for injunctive relief granted	5-4

2019-2020 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2019-2020 term.

2019-2020 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 2nd Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Retirement Plan Committee of IBM v. Jander	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	NA
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	6-3
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda (Consolidated with Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia)	Neil Gorsuch	reversed and remanded	6-3
Retirement Plan Committee of IBM v. Jander	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashion Group	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed and remanded	9-0
USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International	Brett Kavanaugh	reversed	5-3
Trump v. Vance	John Roberts	affirmed and remanded	7-2

Federal courthouse

The Second Circuit has its clerk's office and hears oral arguments at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in Foley Square in Lower Manhattan. Foley Square was originally part of the New York neighborhood known as the Five Points. Architect Cass Gilbert, whose later work included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (1925) and the U.S. Supreme Court Building (1935), was commissioned in 1931 to design the new federal courthouse in Foley Square. Construction began in 1932, and was completed over the course of three years. The building was one of the first federal skyscrapers. Prominent features of the courthouse include its 30-story tower, ten Corinthian columns, and a monumental staircase. The building was given the honor of being added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1987.

Due to renovations, during the summer of 2006, the court temporarily relocated to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in New York City across Pearl Street from the Marshall Courthouse. Some of the Court's offices, including the Office of Legal Affairs, moved to the Woolworth Building for the duration of the renovations, which were expected to take several years. After six years, in January 2013, the court returned to the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse.

About United States Court of Appeals

The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal courts. The court of appeals was originally created in 1891 and has grown to include thirteen courts.

A court of appeals decides appeals from any of the district courts that are in its federal judicial circuit. The appeals courts also can hear appeals from some administrative agencies. Decisions of the federal appeals courts can, in turn, be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

There are thirteen United States courts of appeals. In addition, there are other federal courts (such as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which hears appeals in court-martial cases) that have "Court of Appeals" in their titles.

The eleven "numbered" circuits and the D.C. Circuit are defined by geography. The thirteenth court of appeal is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court has nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of appeals based on what the underlying legal case is about.

All of the courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking. The largest share of this type of case is heard by the D.C. Circuit. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from specialized trial courts, primarily the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims, as well as appeals from the district courts in patent cases and certain other specialized matters.

Federal circuit court judges are appointed for life. They are paid approximately $179,500 annually. At the age of 65, a federal judge may choose to retire with his or her full salary. Judges may also choose to go on senior status at age 65, if they have served actively for 15 years.

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of appeals court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through November 1 of the fourth year of each president's term in office. At this point in the term, President Trump had the most appeals court appointments with 53.

Judges by circuit

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each circuit and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies on a circuit and how many pending nominations for that circuit are before the United States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line. It is updated every Monday.

See also

• Federal courts
• Federal judge
• United States Court of Appeals
• United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
• United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
• United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
• United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
• United States District Court for the Western District of New York
• United States District Court for the District of Vermont

External links

• Website of the Second Circuit
• Federal Judicial Center - About the Second Circuit