Absolute immunity. The Second Circuit has held that testifying witness in police disciplinary hearings have absolute immunity.

The decision in Rolon v. Henneman can be found here.

What is a person? Chemical companies were held to persons under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), allowing them to remove a case to federal action. The chemical companies were found to have acted under a federal officer performing acts under color of federal office with respect to Agent Orange.

The Second Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court finding no federal jurisdiction. The decision in Isaacson v. Dow Chemical Co. can be found here.

Certified question. The Second Circuit has certified an interesting question to the New York State Court of Appeals. (Well, they're all interesting to me, but that 's because I'm a Second Circuit geek.) The question is whether, when an injured person brings an action against an insured by serving the party throught the Secretary of State, this service suffices to trigger the insured's obligation to notify his insured under the terms of the policy. This issue has led to divergent opinions in the district courts.

The decision in Briggs Avenue LLC v. Insurance Corporation of Hanover can be found here.

Terror Publicity. The owner of an ice cream parlor in Park Slope, Brooklyn, who had been convicted of illegally funneling money from the business to Yemen in violation of U.S. law. There had been some publicity about his terror connections, and he was convicted. On appeal, he raised the issue of the pretrial publicity. A divided Second Circuit held that he had waived the defense because, although he had raised the issue, he had not asked that the jurors be polled to see if they had seen the publicity. Without such a poll, there was no evidence that the jury had been affected by the publicity. Judge Sack dissented, in part because of the publicity issue, which he thought violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

The decision in United States v. Elfgeeh can be found here.

Suspension. The Second Circuit, in Ruis-Martinez v. Mukasey, has held that the REAL ID Act does not violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution. The respondents had argued that relief under the Act, with its 30-day limitations period, was not an adquate substitute for relief under a writ of habeas corpus.

The decision can be found here.

Objection. The Second Circuit has held that the objection of the Department of Homeland Security to a petition to reopen a removal proceeding, having nothing to do with the merits, is an insufficient basis to deny the petition.

The decision in Melnitsenko v. Mukasey can be found here.