United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Southern District of New York
Second Circuit
Judgeships
Posts: 28
Judges: 26
Vacancies: 2
Judges
Chief: Laura Swain
Active judges: Ronnie Abrams, Vernon Broderick, Andrew L. Carter Jr., Jessica Clarke, John Peter Cronan, Paul A. Engelmayer, Katherine Failla, Jesse Furman, Margaret Garnett, Philip M. Halpern, Dale Ho, Kenneth Karas, John Koeltl, Lewis Liman, James Paul Oetken, Edgardo Ramos, Jennifer Rearden, Jennifer Rochon, Nelson S. Roman, Cathy Seibel, Arun Subramanian, Laura Swain, Analisa Torres, Jeannette Vargas, Mary Kay Vyskocil, Gregory Howard Woods Senior judges: Richard Berman, Vincent L. Briccetti, Naomi Buchwald, Valerie Caproni, Kevin Castel, Denise Cote, Paul Crotty, George Daniels, Paul Gardephe, Charles Haight, Alvin Hellerstein, Lewis Kaplan, John Keenan, Victor Marrero, Colleen McMahon, Loretta Preska, Jed Rakoff, Lorna Schofield, Louis Stanton, Sidney Stein, Kimba Wood

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is one of 94 United States district courts. The Southern District is one of the most influential and active federal district courts in the United States, largely because of its jurisdiction over New York's major financial centers. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit based in Lower Manhattan at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Courthouse.

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are two current vacancies on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, out of the court's 28 judicial positions.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominees for this court.

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
John Koeltl	Bill Clinton (D)	August 10, 1994 -	Georgetown University, 1967	Harvard Law, 1971
Laura Swain	Bill Clinton (D)	July 11, 2000 -	Harvard-Radcliffe College, 1979	Harvard Law, 1982
Kenneth Karas	George W. Bush (R)	June 13, 2004 -	Georgetown University, 1986	Columbia University Law, 1991
Cathy Seibel	George W. Bush (R)	July 30, 2008 -	Princeton University, 1982	Fordham University Law, 1985
James Paul Oetken	Barack Obama (D)	July 20, 2011 -	University of Iowa, 1988	Yale Law, 1991
Paul A. Engelmayer	Barack Obama (D)	July 27, 2011 -	Harvard, 1983	Harvard Law, 1987
Edgardo Ramos	Barack Obama (D)	December 6, 2011 -	Yale, 1982	Harvard Law, 1987
Andrew L. Carter Jr.	Barack Obama (D)	December 8, 2011 -	University of Texas, 1991	Harvard Law, 1994
Jesse Furman	Barack Obama (D)	February 17, 2012 -	Harvard, 1994	Yale Law, 1998
Ronnie Abrams	Barack Obama (D)	March 23, 2012 -	Cornell University, 1990	Yale Law School, 1993
Katherine Failla	Barack Obama (D)	March 5, 2013 -	College of William & Mary, 1990	Harvard Law, 1993
Analisa Torres	Barack Obama (D)	April 23, 2013 -	Harvard, 1981	Columbia Law, 1984
Nelson S. Roman	Barack Obama (D)	May 13, 2013 -	Fordham University, 1984	Brooklyn Law, 1989
Vernon Broderick	Barack Obama (D)	September 10, 2013 -	Yale, 1985	Harvard Law, 1988
Gregory Howard Woods	Barack Obama (D)	November 18, 2013 -	Williams College, 1991	Yale Law, 1995
Mary Kay Vyskocil	Donald Trump (R)	December 20, 2019 -	Dominican College of Blauvelt, 1979	St. John's University School of Law, 1983
Lewis Liman	Donald Trump (R)	December 31, 2019 -	Harvard College, 1983	Yale University Law School, 1987
Philip M. Halpern	Donald Trump (R)	February 21, 2020 -	Fordham University, 1977	Elizabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, 1980
John Peter Cronan	Donald Trump (R)	August 10, 2020 -	Georgetown University, 1998	Yale Law School, 2001
Jennifer Rochon	Joe Biden (D)	June 13, 2022 -	University of Michigan, 1992	New York University School of Law, 1997
Jennifer Rearden	Joe Biden (D)	October 7, 2022 -	Yale University, 1992	New York University School of Law, 1996
Arun Subramanian	Joe Biden (D)	April 13, 2023 -	Case Western Reserve University, 2001	Columbia Law School, 2004
Jessica Clarke	Joe Biden (D)	April 20, 2023 -	Northwestern University, 2005	Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, 2008
Dale Ho	Joe Biden (D)	August 18, 2023 -	Princeton University, 1999	Yale Law School, 2005
Margaret Garnett	Joe Biden (D)	January 9, 2024 -	University of Notre Dame, 1992	Columbia Law School, 2000
Jeannette Vargas	Joe Biden (D)	November 6, 2024 -	Harvard College, 1995	Yale Law School, 2000

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

The list below displays 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.

• Democratic appointed: 20
• Republican appointed: 6

Senior judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Charles Haight	Gerald Ford (R)	September 23, 1995 -	Yale University, 1952	Yale Law School, 1955
Louis Stanton	Ronald Reagan (R)	October 1, 1996 -	Yale University, 1950	University of Virginia School of Law, 1955
John Keenan	Ronald Reagan (R)	December 31, 1996 -	Manhattan College, 1951	Fordham University Law, 1954
Kimba Wood	Ronald Reagan (R)	June 1, 2009 -	Connecticut College, 1965	Harvard Law School, 1969
Sidney Stein	Bill Clinton (D)	September 1, 2010 -	Princeton University, 1967	Yale Law, 1972
Jed Rakoff	Bill Clinton (D)	December 31, 2010 -	Swarthmore College, 1964	Harvard Law, 1969
Victor Marrero	Bill Clinton (D)	December 31, 2010 -	New York University, 1964	Yale Law School, 1968
Alvin Hellerstein	Bill Clinton (D)	January 30, 2011 -	Columbia, 1954	Columbia Law, 1956
Lewis Kaplan	Bill Clinton (D)	February 1, 2011 -	University of Rochester, 1966	Harvard Law, 1969
Richard Berman	Bill Clinton (D)	September 11, 2011 -	Cornell University, 1964	New York University School of Law, 1967
Denise Cote	Bill Clinton (D)	December 15, 2011 -	St. Mary's College, 1968	Columbia Law School, 1975
Naomi Buchwald	Bill Clinton (D)	March 21, 2012 -	Brandeis University, 1965	Columbia Law School, 1968
Paul Crotty	George W. Bush (R)	August 1, 2015 -	University of Notre Dame, 1962	Cornell Law School, 1967
Loretta Preska	George H.W. Bush (R)	March 1, 2017 -	College of St. Rose, 1970	Fordham University School of Law, 1973
Kevin Castel	George W. Bush (R)	August 5, 2017 -	St. John's University, 1972	St. John's University School of Law, 1975
Colleen McMahon	Bill Clinton (D)	April 10, 2021 -	The Ohio State University, 1973	Harvard Law, 1976
George Daniels	Bill Clinton (D)	May 1, 2021 -	Yale, 1975	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1978
Vincent L. Briccetti	Barack Obama (D)	April 21, 2023 -	Columbia University, 1976	Fordham University Law, 1980
Paul Gardephe	George W. Bush (R)	August 9, 2023 -	University of Pennsylvania, 1979	Columbia Law, 1982
Lorna Schofield	Barack Obama (D)	December 31, 2024 -	Indiana University, 1977	New York University Law, 1981
Valerie Caproni	Barack Obama (D)	January 7, 2025 -	Tulane University, 1976	University of Georgia Law, 1979

Senior judges by appointing political party

The list below displays 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.

• Democratic appointed: 13
• Republican appointed: 8

Magistrate judges

Federal magistrate judges are federal judges who serve in United States district courts, but they are not appointed by the president and they do not serve life terms. Magistrate judges are assigned duties by the district judges in the district in which they serve. They may preside over most phases of federal proceedings, except for criminal felony trials. The specific duties of a magistrate judge vary from district to district, but the responsibilities always include handling matters that would otherwise be on the dockets of the district judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve for renewable terms of eight years. Some federal district courts have part-time magistrate judges, who serve for renewable terms of four years.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Barbara Moses			Dartmouth University	Harvard Law School
Debra Freeman			Yale University	New York University
James L. Cott			Harvard College, 1981	Northeastern School of Law, 1985
Kevin Fox		October 2, 1997 -	Columbia University	Brooklyn Law School
Gabriel Gorenstein		March 2, 2001 -	Yale University, 1979	Columbia Law, 1984
Paul Davison		January 5, 2009 -	Harvard College, 1980	New York University Law, 1985
Sarah Netburn		August 16, 2012 -	Brown University	University of California
Judith C. McCarthy		April 14, 2014 -	Barnard College	City University of New York Law School
Katharine Parker		November 4, 2016 -
Robert Lehrburger		October 30, 2017 -
Stewart Aaron		December 1, 2017 -
Ona Wang		March 5, 2018 -
Sarah Cave		October 1, 2019 -
Andrew Krause	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York	October 23, 2020 -	Yale University, 2000	Harvard Law School, 2005
Jennifer Willis	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York	February 11, 2022 -	Columbia University	New York University School of Law
Kim Berg		September 23, 2022 -

Former Chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in one of the federal courts, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65 and have not previously served as chief judge. A vacancy in the office of chief judge is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges. The chief judge serves for a term of seven years or until age 70, whichever occurs first. The age restrictions are waived if no members of the court would otherwise be qualified for the position. Unlike the Chief Justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of his or her term and does not create a vacancy on the bench by the fact of his or her promotion.

Former Chief Judges	Term
Colleen McMahon	2016 - 2021
Sidney Sugarman
Sylvester Ryan
Constance Motley
Lloyd MacMahon
David Edelstein
Charles Brieant
John William Clancy
William Bondy
John Clark Knox
Lisa Smith	2006 - 2008
Loretta Preska	2009-2016
Kimba Wood	2006 - 2009

Former judges

For more information about the judges of the Southern District of New York, see former federal judges of the Southern District of New York.

Jurisdiction

The Counties of the Southern District of New York (click for larger map)

The Southern District of New York has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

The court shares geographic jurisdiction over New York City with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which manages Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond (Staten Island) counties, along with Nassau and Suffolk on Long Island.

• New York County
• Bronx County
• Westchester County
• Putnam County
• Rockland County
• Orange County
• Dutchess County
• Sullivan County

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2025.

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 District Court for the Southern District of New York caseload stats, 2010-2024
Year	Cases Filed	Cases Terminated	Cases Pending	Number of Judgeships	Vacant Judgeship Months	Average Total Filings per Judgeship	Trials Completed per Judgeship	Median time from filing to disposition, criminal	Median time from filing to disposition, civil	Three-year civil cases (#)	Three-year civil cases (%)
2010	12,757	11,966	28,831	28	41	456	10	14	8	11,337	48
2011	11,701	21,171	17,620	28	87	417	11	15	37	4,010	28
2012	12,110	11,967	19,180	28	68	433	15	15	8	3,630	26
2013	12,093	12,118	18,844	28	44	432	15	16	8	3,466	26
2014	13,359	13,375	18,706	28	0	477	14	15	9	3,202	23
2015	12,490	13,196	17,972	28	5	446	14	16	8	2,452	18
2016	12,983	13,772	17,191	28	12	464	15	13	9	2,244	18
2017	12,721	12,179	17,255	28	27	454	15	14	7	2,379	19
2018	15,104	13,094	19,239	28	52	539	15	14	6	2,664	19
2019	14,490	14,971	18,685	28	72	518	14	15	7	2,927	21
2020	13,130	12,436	19,321	28	31	469	10	16	7	2,792	20
2021	13,359	13,657	19,026	28	41	477	18	19	6	3,292	23
2022	13,113	14,652	17,474	28	54	468	16	19	6	3,377	27
2023	13,313	12,871	17,873	28	31	475	20	18	6	3,522	26
2024	11,206	12,403	16,616	28	8	400	19	17	7	3,250	26
Average	12,929	13,589	18,922	28	38	462	15	16	9	3,636	25

History

The Southern District is a successor to the original District of New York, which was split into Northern and Southern Districts on April 9, 1814. The United States District Court for the District of New York was the first District Court ever convened under the sovereignty of the United States, with Judge James Duane presiding on November 3, 1789. Over its history, the court grew to twenty-eight permanent judicial posts and one temporary post that remains so.

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Southern District of New York:

Year	Statute	Total Seats
September 1789	1 Stat. 73	1 (District of New York)
April 9, 1814	3 Stat. 120	1 (Creation of court)
February 9, 1903	32 Stat. 805	2
May 26, 1906	34 Stat. 202	3
March 2, 1909	35 Stat. 685	4
September 14, 1922	42 Stat. 837	4 (2 temporary)
February 26, 1929	45 Stat. 1317	7 (2 temporary)
August 19, 1935	49 Stat. 659	9
June 15, 1936	49 Stat. 1491	11
May 31, 1938	52 Stat. 585	11 (1 temporary)
March 24, 1940	54 Stat. 219	11 (2 temporary)
June 8, 1940	54 Stat. 253	12 (1 temporary)
August 3, 1949	63 Stat. 493	16 (1 temporary)
February 10, 1954	68 Stat. 8	18 (1 temporary)
May 19, 1961	75 Stat. 80	24 (1 temporary)
June 2, 1970	84 Stat. 294	27 (1 temporary)
December 1, 1990	104 Stat. 5089	28 (1 temporary)

Noteworthy cases

For a list of notable decisions, please see Opinions for the Southern District of New York.

Eric Adams federal corruption case

2025

Dismissal

On February 10, 2025, the U.S. Justice Department and the acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered federal prosecutors in the case to drop all charges against Adams. On April 2, 2025, U.S. Judge Dale Ho issued an order dismissing the case.

2024

Indictment

In August 2024, federal prosecutors issued subpoenas to Adams, several divisions of his campaign, and the City of New York. On September 25, 2024, Adams was indicted by federal prosecutors and charged with five counts of wire fraud, bribery, and campaign finance offenses. Prosecutors alleged that Adams received financial aid and travel perks from Turkish foreign nationals in exchange for political favors. Adams pleaded not guilty to all charges. In a statement, Adams said, "I always knew that if I stood my ground for New Yorkers that I would be a target — and a target I became." He added, "If I am charged, I am innocent and will fight this with every ounce of my strength and spirit." Adams was set to appear in court on April 21, 2025, to stand trial on the charges.

2023

Investigation

In the spring of 2023, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York began a federal criminal inquiry of Adams' mayoral campaign in 2021. The investigation was based on allegations Adams received illegal campaign donations from the Turkish government and was part of a larger public probe into political corruption led by the FBI and federal prosecutors in the New York City borough of Manhattan. Adams responded to the allegations, saying he had nothing to hide and would fully cooperate with investigators. The FBI and federal prosecutors declined to comment. In November, the FBI seized multiple electronic devices belonging to Adams, which were later returned to him. FBI agents also searched the home of Brianna Suggs — one of the top fundraisers for Adams' campaign — according to the Associated Press.

Sean "Diddy" Combs sex trafficking trial (2024)

---

This article contains a developing news story. Ballotpedia staff are checking for updates regularly. To inform us of new developments, email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

---

On July 2, 2025, rapper and business executive Sean "Diddy" Combs was found guilty of two charges of transportation to engage in prostitution in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Arun Subramanian denied Combs bail and ordered him to remain in jail until his sentencing.

On September 16, 2024, Combs was arrested and indicted on counts of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution, also known as a violation of the Mann Act. This followed multiple allegations of misconduct since November 2023 and FBI raids on his two homes in March 2024. Combs was alleged to have used his money, influence, and connections to engage in sex trafficking, abuse, and other crimes since at least 2004. In addition to the federal criminal trial, several related lawsuits were filed against Combs.

Combs denied all allegations and pleaded not guilty to all charges in the initial indictment. Prior to his arrest, Combs posted to Instagram, saying, "I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and for the truth.”

On November 27, 2024, Combs was denied bail for the third time as Judge Arun Subramanian found evidence that there would be a risk of witness tampering. He was previously denied bail twice following his arrest in September 2024.

On January 30, 2025, the prosecution filed an expanded indictment. There were no new charges, but additional allegations of criminal behavior were included. He pleaded not guilty at the arraignment on March 14, 2025. On April 4, 2025, the indictment was expanded again with the charges being one count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex-trafficking, and two counts of violating the Mann Act.

• NYC settles with five men wrongfully convicted (2014)

Click for summary→

In April 1989, Trisha Melli was jogging through Central Park in New York City when she was attacked. She was raped and beaten. The police arrested a group of teenage boys, ages 14 to 16, all black or Latino. In 2002, an inmate unconnected with the five men confessed to the attack, and his DNA matched that found at the crime scene. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office asked for the convictions to be vacated. New York City did not admit any wrongdoing on its part and refused to make a monetary settlement until 2014. Four of the men were set to receive $7.125 million and one man, who spent nearly 13 years in prison, to receive $12.25 million. The settlement, which took years to work out, had to be approved by Judge Ronald Ellis. Articles: Gothamist, "Judge Officially OKs Central Park Five's $41 Million Settlement," September 6, 2014 New York Daily News, "Central Park Five’s legal battle officially over as federal judge signs off on $41 million wrongful conviction settlement," September 5, 2014

• 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 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

• Judge upholds ban on tobacco discounting in NYC (2014)

Click for summary→

Judge Thomas Griesa upheld the New York City ban on coupons and other discounts for tobacco products. The ban is an effort by the city to keep the prices of tobacco products high, for adults and kids, so that they are less appealing or affordable. Lawyers for the tobacco companies claimed that the ban infringed on their clients' First Amendment right to free speech (along with other federal law claims). Judge Griesa, however, stated that the ban is only meant to regulate an economic transaction by keeping the prices of the products in question at retail price, not regulate manufacturer speech. Articles: Courthouse News, "Court Upholds Tobacco Discount Ban in NYC," June 20, 2014 PR Newswire, "Federal Court Upholds New York City's Law to Prohibit Tobacco Discounts and Further Reduce Youth Smoking," June 18, 2014 Law360, "NY Judge Won't Block NYC Tobacco Coupon Ban," June 18, 2014

• Judge allows case against NYPD in fatal shooting of unarmed man to continue (2014)      Judge(s):Kevin Castel (Bah v. City of New York, 13-cv-6690)	Click for summary→
On May 1, 2014, Judge P. Kevin Castel ruled that a negligence lawsuit filed by the family of a mentally-ill man shot and killed by the New York Police Department (NYPD) may move forward in court. In the underlying case, in 2012, NYPD officers entered the apartment of Mohamed Bah, an emotionally unstable man, after his mother called 911 to get him medical attention. The police claimed that upon their arrival, Bah allegedly started to swing a knife at them. Once inside, officers attempted to subdue Bah with Tasers. One officer accidentally struck another officer with his Taser, prompting the second officer to believe he'd been stabbed by Bah. Officers then fired ten shots at Bah, and hit him eight times, wounding him fatally. Bah's survivors filed a $70 million suit against the City and the NYPD, with claims that the officers were negligent and unlawfully entered Bah's apartment. In his ruling on the matter, Judge Castel dismissed the family's claims of negligence, but allowed allegations of unlawful entry and improper supervision to stand, noting, "Based on the facts alleged, it is plausible that immediate action was not necessary as the [Emergency Service Unit] officers, at minimum, may have been able to enlist Mrs. Bah’s help in speaking with Bah and did not have reason to believe that Bah posed a threat to anyone." A spokesperson for the New York City Law Department pledged that the City's attorneys would "vigorously defend this lawsuit.”

• Judge strikes down New York's campaign contribution limits as to individual groups (2014)      Judge(s):Paul Crotty (New York Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh, et al, 1:13-cv-06769-PAC)	Click for summary→
On April 24, 2014, Judge Paul Crotty found that the State of New York's $150,000 yearly limit on campaign contributions to independent groups -- in particular, political groups known as super PACS -- was unconstitutional under the First Amendment in light of a Second Circuit ruling and the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. In the fall of 2013, the New York Progress and Protection PAC (NYPPP), a group that supported conservative candidate Joe Llota's failed bid for the New York City mayorship, filed suit seeking an injunction against the state's election laws, specifically requesting that the six-figure cap on campaign contributions be suspended. NYPPP did not initially receive its injunction, but when the case was brought to the Second Circuit, the appeals court found that the law which limited financial contributions was likely unconstitutional, and in October 2013, lifted the cap for the duration of the New York City mayoral election. When the case returned to the federal district court, Judge Crotty bemoaned the Second Circuit and Supreme Court rulings, referring to the decisions as "misguided," but applicable nonetheless, noting, "Our Supreme Court has made clear that only certain contribution limits comport with the First Amendment." Following the "clear guidance" received from both courts above his own, Crotty granted a NYPPP motion for summary judgment, effectively striking down New York's campaign contribution limits as to individual groups. A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman expressed his "disappointment" with the decision. Notably, Shaun McCutcheon, the plaintiff in the precedential Supreme Court case, pledged to contribute "at least $200,000" to NYPPP during Llota's unsuccessful bid for the New York City mayorship.

• Railroad retiree sentenced for collecting fraudulent disability payments (2014)      Judge(s):Kimba Wood (U.S. v. Neville)	Click for summary→
On March 10, 2014, Judge Kimba Wood sentenced Kevin Neville, a former Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) dispatcher, to twenty-one months in prison for his rampant filing of fraudulent disability claims. Neville was part of a "massive, decadelong scheme" where former LIRR employees made fraudulent claims to the federal Railroad Retirement Board. Neville collected about $200,000 after claiming that he had very bad back pain. In the prosecution of the case against Neville, the government found that the man was an avid golfer and shoveled snow in the winter months, despite assertions that he couldn't "bend or stretch." Neville's lawyer asked that Judge Wood sentence his client to probation, but she declined to do so, citing Neville's "greed." Neville was sentenced to one year and nine months in jail in the hope of deterring future fraud.

• Chevron victory in Ecuadorian pollution case (2014)      Judge(s):Lewis Kaplan (Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF)	Click for summary→
On March 4, 2014, Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in favor of Chevron, an oil and natural gas company, in a case alleging that a multibillion dollar pollution judgment against it, issued by a foreign court, had been obtained through illegitimate means of fraud and corruption. In the underlying case, Judge Nicolas Zambrano of Ecuador found Chevron liable for polluting the Lago Agrio rainforest on February 14, 2011, assessing about $19 billion in damages and fines against the company. Chevron refused to pay the fines or accept responsibility for the pollution, and the company brought this case on U.S. soil, alleging that much of the evidence used to obtain judgment was fabricated by lead attorney Steven Donziger. Donziger denied the allegations, but the evidence against him detailing the fraud upon the court, up to and including bribing Judge Zambrano, was overwhelming. In an almost 500-page ruling, Judge Kaplan noted, "an innocent defendant is no more entitled to submit false evidence, to co-opt and pay off a court-appointed expert or to coerce or bribe a judge or jury than a guilty one." Judge Kaplan further noted that Donziger and his team subverted justice in their actions, writing: “ Justice is not served by inflicting injustice. The ends do not justify the means. There is no “Robin Hood” defense to illegal and wrongful conduct. And the defendants’ “this-is-the-way-it-is-done-in-Ecuador” excuses – actually a remarkable insult to the people of Ecuador – do not help them. The wrongful actions of Donziger and his Ecuadorian legal team would be offensive to the laws of any nation that aspires to the rule of law, including Ecuador. ” Donziger pledged to appeal the ruling, calling it an "appalling decision from a deeply flawed proceeding."

• NSA's phone surveillance tactics are constitutional (2013)      Judge(s):William Pauley (American Civil Liberties Union, et al v. Clapper, et al, 13-cv-3994 (WHP))	Click for summary→
On December 27, 2013, Judge William Pauley granted the government's motion to dismiss in this case, ruling that the National Security Agency's (NSA) collection of telephone data was constitutional, and creating a split of authority within the federal judiciary. In the underlying case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the government in June 2013, alleging Fourth Amendment privacy violations and First Amendment free speech and association violations following the Guardian newspaper's revelation of the extent of the NSA's domestic spying protocols, specifically, the collection of "bulk telephony metadata" from all phone calls made in America. Pauley dismissed the ACLU's complaint, referring to the NSA's tactics as an anti-terrorism "counter-punch," and further noting that the agency's "blunt tool only works because it collects everything." One week prior to Pauley's ruling, Judge Richard Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the NSA's collection of telephone metadata en masse was unconstitutional, calling the program "almost Orwellian." On January 2, 2014, the ACLU appealed Pauley's ruling to the Second Circuit.

• Wrongfully imprisoned man freed after 18 years (2013)      Judge(s):Charles Haight (Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction, 3:03-CV-196 (CSH))	Click for summary→
On December 16, 2013, Judge Charles Haight ordered that Scott Lewis, a Connecticut man imprisoned after a double homicide conviction in 1995, be freed within 60 days unless the state should decide to retry him. Lewis pressed his innocence from the time of his arrest and throughout nearly two decades spent in prison, working feverishly to win his freedom despite his 120-year sentence. He represented himself without an attorney for 14 years before Professor Brett Dignam of the Columbia Law School's Mass Incarceration Clinic stepped in to assist with his case. Based on information from prior court proceedings -- including two state court habeas petitions, FBI intervention and investigation, and a federal court habeas petition -- Judge Haight, in examining whether Lewis received a fair trial and without commenting on his innocence, determined that Lewis was "entitled to federal habeas relief because the state suppressed exculpatory and impeachment evidence" (i.e., the state withheld evidence that a key witness had been coached by police and that a police informant who died before trial notified authorities that another man committed the crime). A representative from the Connecticut state attorney's office noted that the case was under review following Judge Haight's ruling.

• Weird Al Yankovic royalties settlement (2013)      Judge(s):Analisa Torres (Ear Booker Enterprises v. Sony Music Entertainment, 1:12-cv-02385-AT)	Click for summary→
In March 2012, Ear Booker Enterprises, a company owned by parodist Weird Al Yankovic, filed suit against Sony Music Entertainment alleging that the artist was owed approximately $5 million in unpaid music royalties. Specifically, Ear Booker alleged that the record label treated digital downloads as sales as opposed to licenses, resulting in income to the singer of 15 percent rather than 50 percent. In addition, Ear Booker requested payments from settlements reached by Sony with third party music programs such as Spotify, Vevo, Napster, Kazaa, and Grokster. On December 16, 2013, the parties settled the case and filed a stipulation of dismissal, signed by Judge Analisa Torres. The details of the settlement were not disclosed to the public.

• Match.com class action suit over fraudulent dating profiles (2013)      Judge(s):Jesse Furman (Avalos v. IAC/Interactive Corp., Match.com LLC, and People Media LLC, 1:13-cv-08351-JMF)	Click for summary→
On November 21, 2013, lead plaintiff Yuliana Avalos filed a class action lawsuit against IAC/InterActiveCorp and its subsidiaries Match.com and People Media alleging numerous causes of action, including trademark, copyright, fraud, negligence, and Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations. Avalos said that while she never had a profile on the dating site Match.com, or any of the other dating sites that were run by the company, the dating site knowingly and intentionally used her photographs in "hundreds if not thousands of fraudulent profiles," and "thousands if not millions of photographs of class members in fraudulent profiles." Avalos alleged that Match.com "conspired with criminals operating from locations including Internet cafes in Nigeria, Ghana and Russia" to create the fraudulent profiles. Avalos further claimed on behalf of the class that Match.com failed to police fraudulent profiles and refused to act on complaints received about them. Avalos requested $500 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. Match.com released a statement and asserted that the suit was "filled with outlandish conspiracy theories," expressing surety that the Southern District of New York would "dismiss this case in short order." The case is before Judge Jesse Furman.

• AntiSec hacker sentenced after judge refuses to recuse (2013)      Judge(s):Loretta Preska (U.S. v. Hammond)	Click for summary→
In March 2012, Jeremy Hammond was arrested and indicted for his involvement in the Stratfor email leak. Hammond was jailed for approximately eight months before Chief Judge Loretta Preska denied him bail at a pretrial hearing. At the same hearing, Judge Preska informed Hammond that he could be sentenced to life in prison for his crimes. Months later, in February 2013, Hammond's defense team filed a motion asking that Judge Preska recuse herself, raising the possibility that she could be biased due to her husband's connection to the case. Chief Judge Preska's husband, Thomas Kavaler, is a partner at the law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, and his emails were leaked in the Stratfor hack. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Preska was employed as a partner at the same firm. Moreover, several of the law firm's clients were victims of the hack. Chief Judge Preska denied the motion, ruling that these facts did not meet the legal standard used to question a judge's impartiality in a case. On May 28, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, Hammond pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to engage in computer hacking. On November 15, 2013, Chief Judge Preska sentenced him the maximum of 10 years in prison.

• NYC violated law in emergency planning for persons with disabilities (2013)      Judge(s):Jesse Furman (Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, et al v. Bloomberg, 1:11-cv-06690-JMF)	Click for summary→
On November 4, 2013, Judge Jesse Furman ruled that New York City's (NYC) inadequate accommodations for disabled residents during emergency situations violated federal law. In the underlying case, two nonprofit groups and two disabled individuals filed suit after Hurricane Irene in 2011, seeking class-action status on behalf of all disabled individuals in NYC. Plaintiffs alleged that NYC failed to do all of the following during emergencies and disasters: plan for evacuation, provide Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible shelter, attend to their needs during power outages, communicate during emergencies, and account for them in recovery operations. In November 2012, following Hurricane Sandy, Furman granted the plaintiffs' request. In a 119-page decision, one which acknowledged that NYC often performed an "outstanding job" with regard to its emergency preparedness planning, Furman wrote that while there was no indication of intentional discrimination on NYC's part, there appeared to be "benign neglect." Furman found that NYC's plans were "inadequate to ensure that people with disabilities [were] able to evacuate before or during an emergency; they fail[ed] to provide sufficiently accessible shelters; and they [did] not sufficiently inform people with disabilities of the availability and location of accessible emergency services." He did not go so far as to suggest possible remedies to these problems, noting that "complexity and potential expense involved." This is the first ruling following a trial where a federal judge has found that a city's emergency plans violated the ADA.

• Strippers entitled to minimum wage (2009-2013)      Judge(s):Paul A. Engelmayer (Hart v. Rick's Cabaret International Inc. et al, 09 Civ. 3042 (PAE))	Click for summary→
U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer presided over a minimum-wage violation class action suit filed on behalf of nearly 2,000 current and former strippers employed at Rick's Cabaret, a Manhattan gentlemen's club. Like many strip clubs, Rick's classified its exotic dancers as independent contractors, without paying hourly wages; they earned income solely from customer tips. Because of the "tight control, indeed, control fairly described as micromanagement" Rick's enforced upon its dancers, often in the form of stringent guidelines and hefty fees and fines, Judge Engelmayer ruled that they ought to be classified as employees deserving of a minimum wage, rather than as independent contractors. Attorneys for the club have said that an appeal is a likely next step.

• Beastie Boys illegal sampling case (2013)      Judge(s):Alison J. Nathan (TufAmerica, Inc. v. Diamond, et al, 1:12-cv-03529-AJN)	Click for summary→
U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan presided over a copyright infringement case filed against the Beastie Boys by record licensing entity TufAmerica. The company alleged that in the 1980s, the hip-hip group illegally sampled music from the band Trouble Funk, an R&B group whose licensing rights are owned by the company. TufAmerica claimed the Beastie Boys illegally used six samples of Trouble Funk’s music for a total of 20 seconds, thus infringing upon the R&B group’s rights. The Beastie Boys moved to dismiss the claims. Judge Nathan was tasked with the duty of determining how the song samples ought to be compared. The Beastie Boys requested that the ordinary observer test be applied, while TufAmerica requested that the fragmented literal similarity test be applied. Judge Nathan agreed with TufAmerica, noting that "[t]he real question at this stage - more so than the question of how to label the relevant test - is whether (as to each sample) plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the sample is quantitatively and qualitatively important to the original work such that the fragmented similarity becomes sufficiently substantial for the use to become an infringement.” Judge Nathan ruled that four of the six samples failed to rise to the level of infringement, but that the remaining two may pass the muster of the fragmented literal similarity test. In doing so, however, she limited TufAmerica’s claims to the three-year statute of limitations set forth in the U.S. Copyright Act, declaring that the licensing entity could not seek monetary damages for any alleged instances of infringement that had occurred before May 12, 2009.

• $400M arbitration award upheld in oil suit (2013)      Judge(s):Alvin Hellerstein (Corporacion Mexicana De Mantenimiento Intergral, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Pemex-Exploracion Y Produccion, 1:2010-cv-00206)	Click for summary→
On August 27, 2013, Judge Alvin Hellerstein upheld a nearly $400 million international arbitration award owed to Corporacion Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral (COMMISA), a Mexican subsidiary of KBR, by Pemex-Exploracion y Produccion (Pemex), a Mexican oil company. In the underlying case, COMMISA and Pemex contracted to build offshore natural gas platforms, and later, in 2004, accused each other of contractual breach. A lengthy legal battle ensued: Pemex proceeded to rescind its contracts with COMMISA, while COMMISA brought its claims to an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration panel. COMISSA was awarded $289 million in damages and $7.5 million in attorneys' fees and expenses. In 2010, Judge Alvin Hellerstein confirmed enforcement of the award in the United States. At the same time, Pemex brought litigation in Mexico to invalidate the arbitration award, and in 2011, the company succeeded. The Eleventh Collegiate Court for the Federal District, a Mexican appeals court, found that based on legislation brought about after the litigation was initiated, Pemex's rescission was non-arbitrable, thus nullifying the award. Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit vacated and remanded Judge Hellerstein's enforcement action to his court. Judge Hellerstein, evaluating the case once more, reaffirmed COMMISA's arbitration award, noting that because the Eleventh Collegiate Court applied a law that did not exist at the time the parties contracted, and because the applicable statute of limitations had since expired, COMMISA would have been denied the opportunity to go to trial. In concluding his analysis of the case, Judge Hellerstein wrote that the Mexican "decision vacating the award violated basic notions of justice."

• Judge strikes down NYPD "stop-and-frisk" tactics (2013)      Judge(s):Shira Scheindlin ([Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 Floyd v. City of New York], 08 Civ. 1034)	Click for summary→
In August 2013, Judge Shira 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. Judge Scheindlin also found that officers used racial profiling during the process, unfairly targeting minorities. The judge didn't rule out use of the program in the future, since the stop-and-frisk procedure was ruled constitutional in some circumstances previously by the Supreme Court of the United States (in Terry v. Ohio in 1968). However, Judge Scheindlin suggested steps to make the process more equitable, including a pilot project where police officers wear body cameras to record interactions and the solicitation of public feedback on the program. Update One In October 2013, the Second Circuit 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. Judge 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. ” Update Two On November 22, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, composed of Judge Jose Cabranes and Senior Judges John Walker and Barrington Parker, 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 groundbreaking "stop-and-frisk" decision still stands.

• Banks artificially inflate tech bubble IPO (2009)      Judge(s):Shira Scheindlin (In Re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS))	Click for summary→
Judge Scheindlin presided in a class-action lawsuit over 309 cases in which shareholders of tech stocks accused underwriters of artificially inflating the value of stock in technology companies that went public in the 1990s. The judge approved a settlement of $586 million. The defendants include, among others, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. The tech burst happened in 2000 after many technology-laden stocks crashed after evidence found that stock brokers issued false information that mislead investors.

• Google book scanning case (2009-2012)      Judge(s):Denny Chin (The Authors Guild, et al. v. Google Inc, and American Society of Media Photographers, et al. v. Google Inc, 1:05-cv-08136-DC)	Click for summary→
Judge Chin presided in a copyright case involving Google after Google was taken to court by the Authors Guild and the American Association of Publishers over alleged copyright violations in the tech giant's attempt to digitize books. On September 9, 2009, it was reported that Google would enter into a $125 million dollar settlement with the Authors Guild and the American Association of Publishers. However, there was widespread opposition to a possible settlement from not only the U.S. government, but also the governments of Germany and France along with Japanese authors, on the grounds of not letting authors have free choice over which parts of their works were published on the search engine. Judge Chin, on September 25, 2009, announced that he would delay a planned October 7, 2009, settlement hearing in the Google books case. Both sides asked for the delay over the possibility of the settlement being anti-competitive. However, both sides planned to meet on October 7, 2009, over case management plans to move the case to a final resolution. During the hearing, Judge Chin set a deadline of November 9, 2009, in which Google must have a settlement plan ready for the judge to approve. The previous settlement proposal was thrown out. On November 19, 2009, Judge Chin gave preliminary approval of a settlement made between Google and book publishers. Google asked Judge Chin on February 11, 2010, to accept a $125 million dollar settlement in relation to the case. Attorneys for Google felt that if no settlement was reached, that it would set precedence for similar cases to backload court dockets resulting in litigation that could take years to rule on. The brief filed by Google was to convince the judge that the settlement would allow for more competition in the virtual book market amid Justice Department objections. Judge Chin on February 18, 2010, held a hearing on whether to accept the settlement by Google. Judge Chin had to delay the ruling because of so much information being presented that according to the judge it was "too much to digest." However, on March 22, 2011, Judge Chin rejected the controversial settlement agreement "on copyright and antitrust grounds." The long-standing case was resolved, at least for publishers, on October 4, 2012, when the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and Google announced a settlement. The AAP, acting on behalf of five publishers named as plaintiffs in the suit, issued a statement stating "Google is said to 'acknowledge the rights and interests of copyright-holders,' and U.S. publishers can 'choose to make available or choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project.'" While Google and the AAP were able to resolve their suit, an additional aspect of the suit remained: "barring a settlement with the Authors Guild, the fair use questions at the heart of the Google program could still be adjudicated by Judge Chin. Scans of court documents involved in the case, as well as transcripts of some hearings, can be found here.

• Harper's Bazaar wage suit (2012)      Judge(s):Harold Baer (Wang v. Hearst Corporation, 1:2012cv00793)	Click for summary→
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer presided over a minimum-wage violation case against Hearst Corporation's Harper's Bazaar, a major fashion magazine. In July 2012, Judge Baer ruled that a federal lawsuit against the Hearst Corporation could go forward under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all unpaid interns who previously worked in the corporation’s magazines division. The suit was brought on behalf of Xuedan Wang, who was an unpaid intern at the magazine. Joined by almost 3,000 interns from other Hearst publications, the lawsuit was a class action suit. The claim is one of three claims brought by the same law firm, Outten & Golden, all revolving around minimum-wage violation claims by interns of major media organizations. Complaint: Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc 1:2011cv06784 Complaint: Lucy Bickerton v. Charles Rose and Charlie Rose, Inc No. 650780/2012 Complaint: Wang v. Hearst Corporation 1:2012cv00793

• NY City smoking deterrent posters (2012)      Judge(s):Jed Rakoff (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 2nd Circuit affirmed the decision of Judge Jed Rakoff, ruling that federal regulations preempted a city ordinance that required cigarette distributors to post gruesome 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 twp other manufacturers, two major retailers, and two trade unions challenged this city law in federal court last year. 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 they 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.

• Madoff trustees cases (2011)      Judge(s):Jed Rakoff	Click for summary→
Judge Rakoff announced on October 14, 2011, that he would take over a lawsuit between Irving Picard, the liquidator of Bernard Madoff’s firm, and 32 trustees who withdrew money before the firm's 2008 bankruptcy. Judge Rakoff took the cases after being asked by investor Gerald Blumenthal, who was being sued by Picard, whether the Madoff estate owed him the money reflected on his Madoff brokerage statements. Blumenthal was then joined by 31 other investors facing similar lawsuits, which inspired Judge Rakoff to take all the cases because of their similarity to each other.

• AT&T age discrimination lawsuit (2011)      Judge(s):J. Paul Oetken (EEOC v. AT&T Inc et al, No. 09-07323)	Click for summary→
In October 2011, Judge Oetken gave his approval of a settlement between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and AT&T. The commission had originally filed suit against AT&T claiming that the company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 by refusing to rehire employees who had previously retired. Under the terms of the settlement, AT&T "will not maintain any policy prohibiting the rehiring of employees who left AT&T under the relevant retirement programs," and, furthermore, will not retaliate against anyone involved in the litigation.

• YES Network case (2010)      Judge(s):Richard Sullivan (Robert M. Gutkowski v. George Steinbrenner III, 1:09-cv-07535-RJS)	Click for summary→
Judge Sullivan rejected a lawsuit by a former Madison Square Garden executive that claimed George Steinbrenner gave the idea for the YES Sports Network. Bob Gutkowski, who used to run Madison Square Garden, said that he was promised compensation for helping start up the YES Network and was seeking $23 million dollars in lost compensation. The case was thrown out after finding that there was not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that Steinbrenner was liable.

• S&P/Moody's case (2010)      Judge(s):Jed Rakoff	Click for summary→
Judge Rakoff ruled on June 1, 2010, that credit rating agencies like S & P and Moody's were not underwriters of securities. A group of plaintiffs sued the two credit rating agencies on claims that they used credit ratings to obtain $63 million dollars in mortgage-backed securities. The judge wrote in his ruling that the plaintiffs in the case had a very broad view of what an underwriter does and found no evidence that S & P and Moody's were involved in underwriting.

• Rajaratnam wiretaps (2010)      Judge(s):Jed Rakoff	Click for summary→
Judge Rakoff ruled on February 10, 2010, that Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam and his associates turn over wiretaps that were used in the discovery of evidence for their criminal case to be used in a civil case. The Securities and Exchange Commission asked the court for Rajaratnam to turn over the wiretaps as they had filed a civil lawsuit over insider trading charges. Judge Rakoff said in his ruling that it would be unfair to have one side have important information such as wiretaps and felt it was important for Rajaratnam and his associates to turn over the wiretaps to the SEC.

• Arthur Nadel criminal case (2010)      Judge(s):John Koeltl (U.S.A. v. Nadel, 09-mJ-00169)	Click for summary→
Judge Koeltl presided in the trial of hedge fund manager Arthur Nadel. Nadel was charged with securities fraud after bilking millions of dollars from investors and pleading guilty on February 24, 2010, to the charges. Nadel was sentenced to 14 years in prison and died in April 2012 while serving his time.

• Hiram Monserrate case (2010)      Judge(s):William Pauley (Monserrate v. NEW YORK STATE SENATE, 695 F. Supp. 2d 80)	Click for summary→
Judge Pauley denied a request by former New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate 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 is considered a misdemeanor. The case was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appellate court 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."

• Dot-com collusion (2010)      Judge(s):William Pauley	Click for summary→
On March 18, 2010, Judge Pauley ruled against striking down a regulation that prohibited collusion between investment bankers and analysts at Wall Street firms. The ruling came after the largest firms on Wall Street in 2009 wanted a 2003 rule that prohibited unsupervised contact between investment bankers and analysts overturned. The judge emphasized in his decision that there needed to be separation between independent analysts and bankers if confidence in the markets could be improved.

• Seinfeld cookbook copyright (2009-2010)      Judge(s):Laura Swain (Lapine v. Seinfeld, No. 08 Civ. 128 (LTS)(RLE))	Click for summary→
Judge Swain tossed out a copyright infringement lawsuit against Jessica Seinfeld on September 10, 2009, after the judge found that a recipe in a cookbook did not infringe upon that of 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 Seinfeld's wife committed plagiarism. The case was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Two appellate judges, Reena Raggi and Peter Hall, ruled against Missy Chase Lapine and affirmed the decision by Judge Swain. The judgment can be read here. 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.

• Bank of America-SEC Settlement (2009)      Judge(s):Jed Rakoff	Click for summary→
Judge Rakoff presided over a lawsuit between the Bank of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2009. The SEC alleged that Bank of America failed to disclose to investors an agreement to pay $5 billion in bonuses when it took over Merrill Lynch. On September 14, 2009, Judge Rakoff rejected the settlement deal between Bank of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The veteran judge called the settlement deal worth $33 million "unreasonable and unfair" after the two sides first agreed to settle on charges Bank of America misled investors. The judge approved the settlement between Bank of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2010. The two sides agreed to a settlement of $150 million. As part of the settlement, Bank of America also had to agree to oversight changes. Rakoff still had criticisms over the new settlement, calling the agreement "half-baked justice," but said that the $150 million settlement was "better than nothing". Click here for a copy of the settlement agreement.

• Marc S. Dreier securities fraud case (2009)      Judge(s):Jed Rakoff (SEC v. Marc S. Dreier, 08 Civ. 10617)	Click for summary→
Judge Rakoff was the presiding judge in the case of Marc S. Dreier, a former New York City attorney who pleaded guilty to committing a securities investment fraud scheme. Dreier faced a possible prison sentence of up to 145 years. On July 13, 2009, Judge Rakoff sentenced Drier to 20 years in prison and criticized federal prosecutors that asked for a 145-year sentence. "Is the government serious about asking for 145 years? To me, for the government to ask for 145 years is to demean the sentence Judge Denny Chin imposed on Mr. Madoff," he said.

• Lil' Kim perjury trial (2009)      Judge(s):Gerard Lynch	Click for summary→
Judge Lynch presided over the perjury trial of rap artist Lil' Kim in 2005. He sentenced her to a year and a day in jail.

• NYC bottled water deposit (2009)      Judge(s):Deborah Batts	Click for summary→
On October 23, 2009, Judge Batts upheld the legality of a new state law in New York that required deposits for bottled water. Judge Batts issued an order that on October 31, 2009, there must be a five cent recycling deposit added on to the normal selling price for bottled water. Business groups in New York filed suit over the law claiming that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

• USA v. John Gotti, Jr. (2009)      Judge(s):Kevin Castel (USA v. John Gotti, Jr., 8:08-cr 00312.T.23EAJ)	Click for summary→
In 2009, Judge Castel presided in the Junior Gotti case on charges of conspiring and drug trafficking. This was the fourth trial of Gotti; the three previous trials ended with hung juries. On July 8, 2009, Judge Castel denied requests to throw out a racketeering indictment and grant bond to Gotti while he was awaiting trial in September of 2009. The motion was made as Gotti had health problems, including kidney stones. Attorneys for Gotti made the request due to complaints of the lack of attention towards the issue at the correctional facility. On December 1, 2009, Judge Castel declared a mistrial in the case of John "Junior" Gotti. This happened after a jury was deadlocked for 11 days in trying to reach a verdict. It was reported that the jury could not find unanimous consent in reaching a verdict. Links for further reading USDOJ Indictment orig filed in USDC, MDFL USA v. John Gotti, Jr. Indictment Venue Change to USDC, SDNY

• Bristol-Meyers Plavix case (2009)      Judge(s):Paul Crotty (Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc., No. 02 Civ. 2255 (SHS))	Click for summary→
Judge Crotty was the presiding judge in a case involving Bristol-Meyers Squibb in a patent dispute with Canadian drug maker Apotex over the blood thinner Plavix. On August 18, 2009, Judge Crotty approved a preliminary settlement that the drug maker and its former chief executive would pay $125 million in damages to settle litigation against Aptoex. The settlement came after a 2007 case in which Bristol-Meyers was fined $1 million by the Federal Trade Commission over making false statements in a failed settlement attempt with Aptoex.

• Fed Reserve disclosure (2009)      Judge(s):Loretta Preska (Bloomberg v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, No. 08 Civ. 9595 (LAP))	Click for summary→
On August 24, 2009, Judge 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, Judge 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.

• NYPD mass arrests (2009)      Judge(s):Richard Sullivan (Michael Schiller v. The City of New York, et al., 1:04-cv-07922-RJS-JCF)	Click for summary→
Judge Sullivan ordered the New York Police Department to release arrest records of 1,800 protesters arrested and detained at the 2004 Republican National Convention. This came after the New York Civil Liberties Union demanded a review of the arrest records. This ruling served as another order from the judge to the New York Police to release the records.

• Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group (1998)      Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132 (1998))	Click for summary→
Judge Sotomayor ruled (and was upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, that SAT: The Seinfeld Aptitude Test infringed on the copyright of the television show Seinfeld. The case is often used in law schools as a modern application of the fair use doctrine.

• Tasini v. New York Times, et al (1997)      Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Tasini v. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp 804 (1997))	Click for summary→
Sotomayor ruled in favor of the New York Times when it was sued by freelance journalists claiming the newspaper did not have the right to include their work in the electronic archival database LexisNexis. Sotomayor's decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and that reversal was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 7-2 vote (Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissenting).

• Dow Jones v. U.S. Department of Justice (1995)      Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Dow Jones v. U.S. Department of Justice, 880F. Supp. 145 (1995))	Click for summary→
In 1995, Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the Wall Street Journal allowing it to print a photocopy of the final note written by Clinton White House deputy counsel Vince Foster who died in 1993. While the death of Vince Foster was ruled a suicide, it remained a mystery to many and a source of many conspiracy theories. As a result, Sotomayor ruled that the "substantial" public interest in the Foster story outweighed any violation of his family's privacy.

• Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc. (1995)      Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc, 67 F3d 1054 (1995))	Click for summary→
Judge Sotomayor's decision to grant a temporary injunction against the Major League Baseball owners on March 31, 1995, ended the 232-day baseball strike of 1994. The injunction prevented the owners from installing replacement players and temporarily reinstated a five-year-old collective bargaining agreement allowing the 1995 season to take place and allowing players and owners to come to a new agreement nearly a year later. Her decision was later upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

• Ivan Boesky case (1987) (United States v. Boesky, No. 87 Cr. 378(MEL))	Click for summary→
Judge Lasker presided in the high-profile insider trading trial of Wall Street trader Ivan Boesky in what was considered the biggest trading scandal of the 1980s. Lasker in 1987 sentenced Boesky to three years in prison after being convicted on charges of insider trading. Boesky got a lighter sentence from the judge after cooperating with federal prosecutors. In a separate civil trial, Boesky settled to pay $100 in damages.

• NYC jails (1974) (Benjamin v. Malcolm, No. 75 Civ. 3073 (MEL))	Click for summary→
Judge Lasker will be remembered for a series of rulings in the 1970s and 1980s in which he forced New York City to change how it conducted business in its jails. During that time, the Legal Aid Society of New York City filed numerous lawsuits against the City of New York for civil rights violations in the Manhattan House of Detention and Rikier's Island. The City of New York was found liable in the lawsuits after there was evidence that the jails had severe overcrowding issues that led to numerous other problems. In one case involving Rikier's Island, the City of New York was found liable for not providing access to inmates for medical care and phone calls. Lasker in 1974 ordered The Tombs, another detention facility in Manhattan, closed after Lasker found the jail also had severe overcrowding and inmates were forced to sleep on the floor, along with dealing with filthy conditions such as cockroaches and mice.

Noteworthy events

Federal Judicial Conference recommendation (2019)

In March 2019, the Federal Judicial Conference (FJC) recommended that one judgeship be added to the district. Based on FJC data, the district handled 542 weighted filings per judgeship from September 2017 to September 2018. Weighted filings are a specific metric used by the federal judiciary that accounts for the different amounts of time judges require to resolve types of civil and criminal cases. The national average in that period for weighted filings per judgeship was 513.

The FJC is the policy-making body for the United States federal courts system. It was first organized as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges in 1922. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States serves as chair of the conference. The members of the conference are the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each regional judicial circuit.

Federal courthouse

The court's main office is housed in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in New York.

About United States District Courts

The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. There are 94 such courts. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of both law and equity.

There is a United States bankruptcy court and a number of bankruptcy judges associated with each United States district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and most districts have more than one.

There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. District courts in three insular areas—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts. Despite their name, these courts are technically not District Courts of the United States. Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article III of the Constitution, and serve terms of 10 years rather than for life.

There are 677 U.S. District Court judgeships.

The number of federal district judge positions is set by the U.S. Congress in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133, which authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, making changes and adjustments in these numbers from time to time.

In order to relieve the pressure of trying the hundreds of thousands of cases brought before the federal district courts each year, many trials are tried by juries, along with a presiding judge.

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of district court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through September 1 of the first year of presidents' second term in office. At this point in the term, President Obama had the most district court appointments with 19.

Judges by district

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

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

Judicial selection

The district courts are served by Article III federal judges who are appointed for life during "good behavior." They are usually first recommended by senators (or members of the House, occasionally). The President of the United States makes the appointments, which must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.

Step	A Candidacy Proceeds	A Candidacy Halts
1. Recommendation made by Congress Member to the President	President Nominates to Senate Judiciary Committee	President Declines Nomination
2. Senate Judiciary Committee interviews Candidate	Sends candidate to Senate for confirmation	Returns candidate to President, who may re-nominate to Committee
3. Senate votes on candidate confirmation	Candidate becomes federal judge	Candidate does not receive judgeship

Magistrate judges

The district courts are also served by magistrate judges. Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The chief judge of each district appoints one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.

Effect of 2013 Government shutdown

On October 1, 2013, Chief Judge Loretta Preska stayed all civil cases in which the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was a participant, with the exception of civil forfeiture cases. The stay was effective until October 18, 2013, the day after the end of the federal shutdown.

The United States Department of Justice responded to the shutdown with a contingency plan concerning U.S. Attorney's Offices across the nation:

“

As Presidential Appointees, U.S. Attorneys are not subject to furlough. Excepted employees are needed to address ongoing criminal matters and civil matters of urgency throughout the Nation. Criminal litigation will continue without interruption as an excepted activity to maintain the safety of human life and the protection of property. Civil litigation will be curtailed or postponed to the extent this can be done without compromising to a significant degree the safety of human life or the protection of property. If a court denies a litigator’s request to postpone a case and orders it to continue, the litigation will become an excepted activity that can continue during the lapse. Headquarters support will be maintained only to the extent necessary to support current operations.

”

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
• District of Connecticut
• Eastern District of New York
• Northern District of New York
• Western District of New York
• District of Vermont

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• Official website for the U.S. District Court for the SDNY
• Official website for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the SDNY
• Official website of the Southern District Court Reporters
• Judges of the Southern District of New York
• Opinions of the Southern District of New York