Judge Sonia Sotomayor:
Analysis of Selected Opinions
Anna C. Henning, Coordinator
Legislative Attorney
Kenneth R. Thomas, Coordinator
Legislative Attorney
July 1, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40649
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Summary
In May 2009, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his intention to retire from the
Supreme Court. Several weeks later, President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who
currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to fill his seat. To fulfill its
constitutional “advice and consent” function, the Senate will consider Judge Sotomayor’s
extensive record – compiled from years as a lawyer, prosecutor, district court judge, and appellate
court judge – to better understand her legal approaches and judicial philosophy.
This report provides an analysis of selected opinions authored by Judge Sotomayor during her
tenure as a judge on the Second Circuit. As a group, the opinions belie easy categorization along
any ideological spectrum. However, it is possible to draw some conclusions regarding Judge
Sotomayor’s judicial approach, both within some specific issue areas and in general.
Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor’s approach as an appellate judge
has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the upholding of past judicial
precedents). Other characteristics appear to include what many would describe as a careful
application of particular facts at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court
might be seen as overstepping its judicial role.
It is difficult to determine the extent to which Judge Sotomayor’s style as a judge on the Second
Circuit would predict her style should she become a Supreme Court justice. However, as has been
the case historically with other nominees, some of her approaches may be enduring
characteristics.
Discussions of the selected opinions are grouped according to various topics of legal significance.
Throughout the report, hyperlinks are provided to opinions authored by Judge Sotomayor.
Congressional Research Service
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
First Amendment: Free Speech.................................................................................................... 2
Speech of Government Employees ........................................................................................ 3
Prisoner Speech Rights ......................................................................................................... 5
Student Speech...................................................................................................................... 5
First Amendment: Religion ......................................................................................................... 5
Religious Freedom Restoration Act ....................................................................................... 6
Prisoner Free Exercise Rights................................................................................................ 6
Second Amendment: Incorporation ............................................................................................. 7
Article I: Commerce Clause ........................................................................................................ 9
Article II: Executive Power ....................................................................................................... 12
Civil Rights: Generally ............................................................................................................. 13
Civil Rights: Individuals with Disabilities ................................................................................. 17
Election Law............................................................................................................................. 19
Ballot Access ...................................................................................................................... 20
Voting Rights Act and Felony Disenfranchisement .............................................................. 21
Abortion ................................................................................................................................... 22
Freedom of Information Act ...................................................................................................... 25
Exemption 5........................................................................................................................ 26
Exemption 6........................................................................................................................ 27
Criminal Law............................................................................................................................ 28
Fourth Amendment ............................................................................................................. 28
Reasonableness of a Search or Seizure .......................................................................... 29
Exclusionary Rule......................................................................................................... 31
Police Immunity.................................................................................................................. 33
Sixth Amendment and Habeas Corpus ................................................................................ 35
Jury Selection ............................................................................................................... 36
Right to Counsel ........................................................................................................... 36
International Issues ................................................................................................................... 38
Hague Child Abduction Convention .................................................................................... 39
Alienage Jurisdiction........................................................................................................... 41
Common Law Revenue Rule............................................................................................... 43
Labor Law/Antitrust.................................................................................................................. 45
Environmental Law................................................................................................................... 45
Securities Law .......................................................................................................................... 47
Preemption by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act........................................... 48
Deference to SEC................................................................................................................ 50
Insider Trading: Misappropriation Theory ........................................................................... 50
Standing.............................................................................................................................. 51
Sarbanes-Oxley................................................................................................................... 51
Taxation.................................................................................................................................... 52
Congressional Research Service
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Government Contractors and Bivens Actions ............................................................................. 53
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 55
Congressional Research Service
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Introduction
On May 26, 2009, President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit to fill the Supreme Court seat that will be vacated by retiring
Justice David Souter. Judge Sotomayor has served on the Second Circuit since 1998. Before her
appointment to the Second Circuit, she served as a federal district court judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. Prior to her role on the federal bench, she worked as
a prosecutor and spent several years as an attorney in private practice.
This report analyzes selected cases authored by Judge Sotomayor during her tenure on the Second
Circuit, including majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in areas of legal significance. In
some instances, it also discusses an opinion authored by Judge Sotomayor while she was a district
court judge or a per curiam (“by the court”) opinion for which Judge Sotomayor served on the
panel of judges that ruled in the case.
Overall, Judge Sotomayor’s opinions defy easy categorization along ideological lines. In
particular areas, a general substantive approach may be discerned. For example, her appellate
court opinions in cases involving suits by individuals with disabilities could be seen as appearing
to favor plaintiffs’ claims, and in various areas of international concern, she could be said to have
shown a tendency to make the Second Circuit available to plaintiffs unless circuit precedent and
the political branches have indicated otherwise.
General characteristics of her approach to the judicial role are more easily identified. Perhaps the
most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor’s approach as an appellate judge could be
described as an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the upholding of past judicial
precedents). This characteristic would be in line with the judicial philosophy of Justice Souter,
who often displayed special respect for upholding past precedent.1 Another characteristic of Judge
Sotomayor’s opinions could be described as a meticulous evaluation of the particular facts at
issue in a case, which may inform whether past judicial precedents from the circuit are applicable.
Her approach to statutory interpretation seems similarly nuanced. She tends to adhere to the plain
meaning of the text but, in the face of ambiguous language, appears willing to consider the intent
and purpose of a statute. Judge Sotomayor’s opinions also display her apparent dislike for
situations in which the court oversteps the role called for by the procedural posture of a case. For
example, in a dissenting opinion in a Fourth Amendment case, issued in May 2009, she wrote that
the court had overstepped its role by delving into the facts in a case involving review of a denial
of a motion for summary judgment.2
While many of her judicial approaches may be enduring, some shifts in her legal conclusions may
naturally arise because of the difference in the roles of a circuit court judge versus a Supreme
Court justice. Whereas circuit court decisions are often bound by relevant Supreme Court
precedents, the Supreme Court more often considers issues of “first impression” – i.e., issues for
which no relevant precedent governs the outcome. In addition, Supreme Court justices have
greater control over their docket than do circuit court judges, and they review cases originating in
1 In what is perhaps the best-known case in connection with Justice Souter, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S.
833, 854 (1992), he joined a plurality opinion which upheld Roe v. Wade. The plurality opinion stated that “the rule of
law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition,
indispensable.”
2 Kelsey v. County of Schoharie, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10985 (2d Cir. 2009).
Congressional Research Service
1
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
state and federal courts throughout the nation. In contrast, as a judge on the Second Circuit, Judge
Sotomayor has typically reviewed cases that originated in federal courts in Vermont, New York,
and Connecticut.
The jurisdictional area and the nature of the Second Circuit affects the range of subjects in which
Judge Sotomayor has had an opportunity to author opinions as an appellate judge. For example,
because none of the states in the Second Circuit’s area authorizes the death penalty, she has not
has been called upon to review a case involving a death sentence. Nonetheless, during her more
than a decade on the Second Circuit, she has written opinions in many issue areas that may be of
interest to the Senate during its deliberations. The following discussion analyzes pertinent
opinions authored by Judge Sotomayor in several of these areas.
First Amendment: Free Speech3
The First Amendment of the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press.... ”4 Judge Sotomayor’s decisions interpreting this clause
do not appear to be considered particularly controversial. To the extent that a pattern can be
discerned, some might point to a meticulous recitation of the facts and her application of
precedent from the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit to those facts.5 Consequently, it does not
appear possible to discern a particular ideology from her opinions or to determine whether she
would favor a more or less expansive application of the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment.
For example, in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush,6 Judge Sotomayor, writing for
the Second Circuit, dismissed a First Amendment challenge to the “Mexico City Policy,” which
restricted foreign non-governmental family planning organizations in receipt of U.S. funds from
providing or promoting abortions. The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (“CLRP”) argued
that the policy restricted its First Amendment right to communicate with foreign non-
governmental family planning organizations that fell under these prohibitions. Judge Sotomayor
applied Second Circuit precedent that had dismissed a nearly identical challenge to the policy and
found that the Mexico City policy did not prevent the CLRP from exercising its first amendment
rights. On the other hand, in U.S. v. Quattrone,7 in another opinion authored by Judge Sotomayor,
the Second Circuit overturned a gag rule placed upon the press by the district court. Sotomayor
noted that the gag order was a prior restraint and that such speech suppression is among the least
tolerated forms of suppression under the First Amendment. Applying Supreme Court precedent
3 This portion of the report was prepared by Kathleen Ann Ruane, Legislative Attorney.
4 U.S. Const. Amdt. I.
5 See, e.g., Papineau v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46 (2006). Judge Sotomayor ruled against officers who were arguing for
qualified immunity in a civil suit filed against them for violating plaintiff’s First Amendment right to protest. When
attempting to break up the protest, the officers involved did not order the protestors to disperse. The officers, instead,
stood in a line, waited 35 seconds, then charged into the crowd arresting people indiscriminately. Because the
circumstances did not appear to suggest imminent harm from the protest, Judge Sotomayor held that the officers should
have issued a dispersal order before beginning to arrest people.
6 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002).
7 402 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 2005). The district court had forbidden the press from publishing the names of the jury in
Quattrone’s trial, but the judge had made no findings of fact regarding the harms that might flow from such publication
and the names of the jurors had been announced, more than once, in open court.
Congressional Research Service
2
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
articulated in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart,8 Sotomayor held that the district court had not
sufficiently justified the gag order and thus overturned it.
Another case analyzing the constitutionality of a prior restraint was Doe v. Mukasey.9 Judge
Sotomayor was part of a unanimous three-judge panel that declared portions of the USA
PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. The case considered provisions of the act that prohibited
recipients of national security letters (NSLs) from disclosing the fact that they had received the
letters, an issue on which the Supreme Court has yet to speak directly. The panel, therefore,
applied Supreme Court precedent related to prior restraints articulated in Freedman v.
Maryland.10 The panel, however, appeared to do so with attention to Supreme Court decisions
that indicate courts owe a higher degree of deference to the Executive Branch in matters of
national security.11
In Freedman, the Supreme Court held that, in general, where an expression is conditioned on
government permission, three procedural protections are needed to guard against impermissible
censorship: (1) restraint prior to judicial review must be only for “a specified brief period”; (2)
any further restraint prior to a final judicial determination must be limited to “the shortest fixed
period compatible with sound judicial resolution”; and (3) the burden of going to court to
suppress speech and the burden of proof in court must be placed on the government.12 The
Second Circuit was able to construe most of the provisions at issue to avoid constitutional
difficulties related to the first two requirements. However, the panel found that one of the
provisions of the act contradicted Freedman’s third requirement regarding the burden of bringing
an action.
Another provision of the act treated certification on the part of government officials that the
disclosure might endanger national security or interfere with diplomatic relations as conclusive
evidence to sustain the government’s burden of proof. The panel held that a certification was not
enough to meet the burden of proof standard set out in Freedman. The panel, therefore, partially
invalidated the provisions at issue, but did not find the provisions to be unconstitutional in their
entirety. Instead, the panel remanded the case to allow the government the opportunity to comply
with the proper constitutional standards.
Speech of Government Employees
In Pappas v. Giuliani,13 Judge Sotomayor demonstrated a willingness to express a difference of
opinion on the application of precedent to a set of facts, albeit without appearing to step outside
the bounds of established case law. A majority of a panel of judges on the Second Circuit upheld
the decision of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to fire an officer for expressing
racist sentiments against a First Amendment challenge. The officer’s speech was made in
anonymous writings that he sent in reply to solicitations for charitable donations, and the speech
was not made in relationship to his employment. Under Supreme Court precedent, public
8 427 U.S. 539 (1976).
9 549 F.3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008).
10 380 U.S. 51 (1965).
11 549 F.3d at 870-873.
12 380 U.S. at 58-59.
13 290 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2002).
Congressional Research Service
3
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
employees may have a claim against their employers if an adverse employment action is taken
against employees because they expressed their opinions on matters of public concern.14
However, employees’ freedom to speak on matters of public concern is balanced against the
state’s interest in the performance of its functions. Applying this standard, the court held that the
interests of the police department outweighed Pappas’ free speech rights in this case. The court
found that public knowledge of a New York City police officer expressing racist attitudes could
substantially undermine the mission of the police department, and the interest in maintaining an
effective police department outweighed Officer Pappas’ speech rights and any effort Pappas may
have undertaken to remain anonymous.
Judge Sotomayor dissented.15 She applied the same precedent as the majority, but reached a
different conclusion. In her opinion, the nature of Pappas’ job and the fact that he had spoken
anonymously should have tipped the balance in Pappas’ favor despite the fact that she found his
speech to be “patently offensive, hateful, and insulting.”16 Judge Sotomayor argued that not only
must a court consider a government entity’s mission in relation to an employee’s speech, a court
must also consider the nature of that employee’s position within the government entity. She then
examined the nature of Pappas’ job and found that, though he was an officer, he was not a cop on
the beat in contact with the public or a high-ranking policy official. Because his job was not to set
policy or to be in contact with the public, she argued that his private opinions about race would
not undermine the NYPD’s ability to function, even if his attitude became public. Judge
Sotomayor also found it significant that the speech in question occurred away from work, on the
employee’s own time, and anonymously. She was swayed by the fact that the employee’s speech
was only brought to light as a result of the employer’s investigation and the employer’s decision
to publicize its results. She noted that the verdict in this case could allow government employers
to launch investigations into employees’ speech and fire them for views that had been
anonymously expressed: a result that she found to be a perversion of the reasonable belief
standard – i.e., the requirement that the government must have “reasonably believed that the
speech would potentially ... disrupt the government’s acitivities.”17 Taken together, Judge
Sotomayor determined from these findings that Pappas had established a claim for retaliation.
In Singh v. City of New York, 18 another retaliation suit involving the speech of a government
employee, Judge Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous panel, ruled against the employee. Singh
worked as a fire alarm inspector and was required to carry certain documents with him to and
from home each day. He voiced his opinion in a number of ways that he should be compensated
for his travel time to and from work each day. Sotomayor found that Singh’s speech did not
involve a matter of public concern, because it could not “be fairly characterized as relating to any
matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.”19 According to Judge Sotomayor,
Singh’s speech related only to internal employment policies and could not establish the first
element of a First Amendment retaliation claim – i.e., that his speech addressed a matter of public
concern.
14 Id. at 146 (citing Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)).
15 Id. at 154 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
16 Id.
17 See Heil v. Santoro, 147 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir. 1998).
18 524 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2008).
19 Id. at 372 (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)).
Congressional Research Service
4
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Prisoner Speech Rights
Judge Sotomayor showed significant deference to prison officials making security decisions in
Duamutef v. Hollins.20 In that case, prison officials had placed an inmate on “mail watch” after he
received a book entitled, “Blood in the Streets: Investment Profits in a World Gone Mad.” In an
opinion authored by Judge Sotomayor, the Second Circuit held that, though the contents of the
book were harmless, due to the prisoner’s history of subversive behavior and the provocative
nature of the title, prison officials could restrict the prisoner’s mail. This case appears to grant
prison officials wide discretion to place restrictions upon prisoners’ First Amendment rights,
provided the officials have some reason to believe such restrictions would benefit prison security.
Student Speech
While Judge Sotomayor did not author any opinions dealing with the free speech rights of
students, she did sit on panels that heard two notable cases. Both cases applied Supreme Court
school speech precedents which held that student speech which is not school sponsored, offensive
or inappropriate can only be restricted if it would substantially disrupt the school function.21 In
Guiles v. Marineau,22 Judge Sotomayor joined a panel ruling in favor of the student, finding that
his anti-President Bush T-shirt had not disrupted the functioning of his school. On the other hand,
in Doninger v. Niehoff, 23 the panel, including Judge Sotomayor, ruled in favor of a school which
had disciplined a student for speech she had engaged in off-campus, finding that the speech did
cause substantial disruption to school function. These cases would seem to indicate that Judge
Sotomayor has not demonstrated a clear preference between the free speech rights of students
versus a school’s discretion to discipline.
First Amendment: Religion24
While on the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has authored few opinions related to religious freedom,
and her opinions in the area do not appear controversial. However, as issues related to the First
20 297 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2002).
21 See Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988); Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675
(1986); Tinker v. Des Moine Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
22 461 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 2006). Judge Sotomayor voted to uphold a student’s right to wear a T-shirt which depicted
President George W. Bush in an unflattering light. (The shirt implied that the President had abused drugs.) The panel
found that the T-shirt was not offensive or inappropriate; therefore, according to the Supreme Court, the student may
only be prevented from wearing it if doing so caused substantial disruption to school functioning. The parties agreed
that the shirt had not caused substantial disruption to school function and therefore could not constitutionally be
censored.
23 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (student disqualified for student government position after posting a statement on a blog
about a school event). The panel noted that the Supreme Court had not ruled definitively upon the scope of school
authority over off-campus speech, but applied Second Circuit precedent which held that students can be disciplined for
expressive conduct occurring outside of school if it would “foreseeably create a risk of substantial disruption in the
school environment.” Because the speech at issue in the case related to a school event, contained vulgar language and
clear inaccuracies, and precipitated many e-mails and phone calls to school officials, the court found the speech rose to
the level at which it might be permissibly punished by school officials.
24 This portion of the report was prepared by Cynthia Brougher, Legislative Attorney.
Congressional Research Service
5
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Amendment’s religion clause often appear on the Supreme Court docket,25 Judge Sotomayor’s
record in such cases will likely be of interest.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
In a case involving the scope of application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),
Judge Sotomayor authored a dissent, arguing that the court had misapplied RFRA and violated
the principle of judicial restraint. In Hankins v. Lyght,26 a minister who was forced by his church
to retire due to age limits filed a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA). The Second Circuit held that RFRA, a statute that generally prohibits the government
from placing substantial burdens on religious exercise, amended the ADEA and remanded the
case to the district court for a hearing on the merits of the case.27 Judge Sotomayor dissented,
arguing that the court’s opinion violated principles of judicial restraint because RFRA was not
raised as an issue in the case.28 She also argued that RFRA should not be applied in a dispute
between private parties and indicated her agreement with other circuits’ adoption of a ministerial
exception to anti-discrimination laws, which allows religious organizations to select clergy
without regard to anti-discrimination requirements.29
The issue in Lyght—the freedom of religious organizations to have independence in hiring
decisions, even if those decisions would otherwise violate federal anti-discrimination laws—has
been a recurring one. Although it has been considered by some lower courts, it has not yet
reached the Supreme Court. The Department of Justice under the Bush administration applied
RFRA to protect such actions by religious organizations, asserting that anti-discrimination
requirements imposed a substantial burden on religious organizations’ exercise of religion.30 The
debate over religious organizations’ so-called hiring rights continues to be controversial,
especially in cases where an organization has received public funding for social service programs.
Prisoner Free Exercise Rights
Another recurring First Amendment issue involves instances in which the government is alleged
to have denied prisoners’ religious free exercise rights. Courts are generally deferential to the
government regarding the degree of accommodation owed to inmates, as exceptions to prison
rules and regulations are difficult to enforce while maintaining order within the prison system.31
25 See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 527 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 129 S.Ct. 1313 (2008) (No. 08-472); Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari, Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 08-846 (U.S. filed Jan. 5, 2009).
26 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006).
27 Id.
28 Id. at 109 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
29 Id. at 118. The Second Circuit had not adopted the ministerial exception, but each of the eight circuit courts to
consider the ministerial exception has recognized it to some extent. Although there appears to be consensus regarding
the ministerial exception, the extent to which religious organizations may make employment decisions for non-clergy
positions remains controversial.
30 See Application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the Award of a Grant Pursuant to the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act, Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsel Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice (June 29, 2007), http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2007/worldvision.pdf.
31 See Joint Statement of Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy, 146 Cong. Rec. 16,698, 16,699 (July 27, 2000) (inserted
in general debate as Exhibit 1) (“Whether from indifference, ignorance, bigotry, or lack of resources, some institutions
restrict religious liberty in egregious and unnecessary ways.”).
Congressional Research Service
6
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
While on the Second Circuit, however, Judge Sotomayor wrote opinions in two prisoner free
exercise cases – Ford v. McGinnis and Salahuddin v. Mead 32 – that held in favor of the prisoners.
While the facts of those cases were not particularly controversial, Sotomayor’s opinions in these
cases may provide insight into her judicial perspective on religious free exercise generally. Free
exercise cases generally require the claimant to have a sincere religious belief and require that the
action challenged impose a substantial burden on that belief. In one of the prisoner free exercise
opinions, Judge Sotomayor strongly emphasized the importance of using a subjective definition
of religion in evaluating such beliefs. Suggesting that an objective belief test “would require
courts to resolve questions that are beyond their competence,” Sotomayor wrote that the
subjective definition “examines an individual’s inward attitudes towards a particular belief
system” and that “the freedom to exercise religious beliefs cannot be made contingent on the
objective truth of such beliefs.”33
Judge Sotomayor also noted the current circuit split over whether or not the substantial burden
test should apply in prisoner free exercise cases, but did not indicate a preference for either
position. She did discuss standards by which courts measure whether a substantial burden exists,
which is a central issue in a non-prisoner case that has been submitted to the Court for possible
review.34 Judge Sotomayor again emphasized the idea that “courts are particularly ill-suited” to
“distinguish important from unimportant religious beliefs.”35 She rejected a narrow definition of
substantial burden which has been favored by some circuits that would define substantial burden
as a burden on a practice mandated by the religion.36 Instead, Sotomayor framed the substantial
burden analysis as whether the relevant religious belief is considered central or important to the
individual’s practice of his or her religion.37
Second Amendment: Incorporation38
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 39
holding by a 5-4 vote that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm, unconnected to service in a militia, and protects the right to use that firearm for
traditional lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. In Heller, the Court affirmed a
32 Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that prison officials were not entitled to summary judgment
because they had not shown “that legitimate penological interests justified their conduct” in denying a prisoner a
religious holiday meal significant to his religious practice); Salahuddin v. Mead, 174 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding
that a prisoner’s First Amendment claim could proceed because the prisoner filed the action prior to the enactment of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which required administrative remedies be exhausted before a lawsuit could be
brought. Thus, the exhaustion requirement did not apply to the prisoner’s claim).
33 Ford, 352 F.3d at 589-90 (internal quotations omitted).
34 See Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service, 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. petition filed, No. 08-846 (U.S. Jan. 5,
2009).
35 Ford, 352 F.3d at 593.
36 Id. (“To confine the protection of the First Amendment to only those religious practices that are mandatory would
necessarily lead us down the unnavigable road of attempting to resolve intra-faith disputes over religious law and
doctrine.”).
37 Id. at 593-94.
38 This portion of the report was prepared by Vivian S. Chu, Legislative Attorney.
39 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). For more on the Supreme Court’s decision, see CRS Report R40137, District of Columbia v.
Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment, by Vivian S. Chu.
Congressional Research Service
7
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
lower court’s holding that declared three provisions of the District of Columbia’s Firearms
Control Regulation Act unconstitutional.40 Although the Court did an extensive analysis of the
Second Amendment to interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment, the decision left
unanswered many questions of significant constitutional magnitude, including the standard of
scrutiny that should be applied to laws regulating the possession and use of firearms, and whether
the Second Amendment applies to the states. It is the latter issue which has been most commented
upon by lower courts in post-Heller cases.
Over 100 years ago, the Court held in United States v. Cruikshank41 (and reaffirmed in Presser v.
Illinois)42 that the Second Amendment does not act as a constraint upon state law. Both of these
decisions, however, were decided prior to the advent of modern incorporation principles. The
Court in Heller briefly commented upon the issue of incorporation stating, “[w]ith respect to
Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note
that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not
engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.”43 It further
noted that subsequent Supreme Court cases had reaffirmed the holding that the Second
Amendment applies only to the federal government.44 While these statements could be viewed as
indicating that the Court would continue with this precedent, it could also be interpreted as
indicating that the Court would support the application of modern incorporation doctrine
principles to the Second Amendment.
Since the Heller decision, three federal appellate circuits have addressed whether the Second
Amendment applies to the states. The first decision to address this issue was a three-judge per
curiam opinion by the Second Circuit in Maloney v. Rice,45 in which Judge Sotomayor was one of
the judges. In Maloney, the plaintiff sought a declaration that a New York penal law that punishes
the possession of nunchukas46 was unconstitutional. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the state
statutory ban violates the Second Amendment because it infringes on his right to keep and bear
arms. Here, the court, citing Presser v. Illinois, held that the state law did not violate the Second
Amendment because “it is settled law ... that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations
the federal government seeks to impose on this right.”47 The court noted that, although Heller
might have questioned the continuing validity of this principle, Supreme Court precedent directs
them to follow Presser because “[w]here, as here, a Supreme Court precedent ‘has direct
application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the
40 Specifically, the three provisions ruled unconstitutional were: (1) D.C. Code § 7-2502.02, which generally barred the
registration of handguns; (2) D.C. Code § 22-4504, which prohibited carrying a pistol without a license, insofar as the
provision would prevent a registrant from moving a gun from one room to another within his home; and (3) D.C. Code
§ 7-2507.02, which required that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger
lock or similar device. 128 S. Ct. at 2817-19.
41 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875).
42 116 U.S. 252 (1886).
43 128 S. Ct. at 2813, n.23.
44 Id. (citing Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894)).
45 554 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2009) (petition for writ of certiorari pending).
46 A “chuka stick” (or “nunchuka”) is defined as “any device designed primarily as a weapon, consisting of two or
more lengths of a rigid material joined together by a thong, rope or chain ... capable of being rotated in such a manner
as to inflict serious injury upon a person.” Id. at 58 (citing N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01(1)).
47 Maloney, 554 F.3d at 58.
Congressional Research Service
8
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the
prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’”48
After the Second Circuit decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Nordyke v.
King held the opposite and concluded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
incorporates the Second Amendment and applied it against the states and local governments.49
The court stated that there are three doctrinal ways the Second Amendment could apply to the
states: (1) direct application; (2) incorporation by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, or (3) incorporation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The court held that it was precluded from finding incorporation through the first two
options and embarked on an analysis under the Due Process Clause by determining whether the
right under the Second Amendment is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”50
After engaging in an historical analysis of the right during the Founding era, the post-
Revolutionary years, and the post-Civil War era, the court concluded that the Second Amendment
was incorporated because “the crucial role [of this] deeply rooted right ... compels us to recognize
that it is indeed fundamental [and] necessary to the Anglo-American conception of the ordered
liberty that we have inherited.”51
On June 2, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in
National Rifle Ass’n of America v. City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park.52 Here, the Seventh
Circuit followed the Second Circuit and also held that the Second Amendment does not apply to
the states. Like the Second Circuit, the Seventh Circuit stated that the Supreme Court’s decisions
in Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller still control as they have direct application in the case. The
court noted that, although Heller questioned Cruikshank, this “[did] not license inferior courts to
go their own ways.... If a court of appeals may strike off on its own, this not only undermines the
uniformity of national law but also may compel the Justices to grant certiorari before they think
the question ripe for decision.”53
Article I: Commerce Clause54
While on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has had an opportunity to address federalism
issues, although it does not appear that these cases are considered of particular significance. For
instance, in United States v. Giordano,55 the court held that the then-mayor of Waterbury,
Connecticut had been constitutionally convicted of making telephone calls to solicit sex with
48 Id. at 59 (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)).
49 Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009).
50 Id. at 450.
51 Id. at 457. The Ninth Circuit, however, went on to hold that the county ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms
on county property did not violate the Second Amendment because it fits within the exception for “sensitive places”
that Heller recognized. Id. at 460.
52 Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. City of Chicago, Illinois and Village of Oak Park, Illinois, Nos. 08-4241, 08-4245 & 08-4244,
slip op. at 3 (7th Cir. Jun 2, 2009) (affirming the lower courts’ decisions to dismiss suits against cities on the ground that
Heller dealt with law enacted under the authority of the national government, while Chicago and Oak Park are
subordinate bodies of a state).
53 Id. at 4.
54 This portion of the report was prepared by Kenneth R. Thomas, Legislative Attorney.
55 442 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2004).
Congressional Research Service
9
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
minors, despite the fact that some of these calls had occurred entirely within Connecticut. Writing
for the court, Judge Sotomayor held that 18 U.S.C. § 2425, which prohibits the use of “any
facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce,” to transmit contact information regarding a
person under the age of 16 years with the intent of that person engaging in illegal sexual activity,
could constitutionally be applied to intrastate phone calls, because the law at issue related to an
instrumentality of commerce.
The Giordana case is within mainstream Commerce Clause analysis.56 In United States v.
Lopez,57 the Supreme Court identified three different categories of regulation in which the
commerce power could be exercised: (1) regulation of channels of commerce; (2) regulation of
instrumentalities of commerce; and (3) regulation of economic activities that have an “effect” on
commerce. Using this framework, the Lopez Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act
of 1990, which made it illegal for “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that
the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.”58
The Court in Lopez reasoned that the law did not fall under the first two commerce categories, but
it also found that it had no substantial “effect” (the third category) on commercial transactions,
either by itself or in the aggregate. Further, the statute contained no requirement that interstate
commerce be affected, such as that the gun had been previously transported in interstate
commerce. Nor was the criminalization of possession of a gun near a school part of a larger
regulatory scheme that did regulate commerce.
It should be noted that the analysis of Lopez dealt principally with the “effect” category of
Commerce Clause analysis, not the “channels” or “instrumentalities” of commerce categories. At
least two federal courts of appeals have suggested, however, that where the relationship between
a “channels” or “instrumentalities” regulation and commercial activity is attenuated, that there
may also need to be some additional Commerce Clause nexus.59 This line of reasoning, however,
has not generally been used in the context of a highly regulated interstate instrumentality such as
the telephone network at issue in Giordana. Thus, Judge Sotomayor, relying on past precedent in
the circuit, did not address this alternative line of analysis.
It may be noted, however, that Judge Sotomayor did not appear inclined to focus on the
alternative line of reasoning, even when some might consider it relevant to another case decided
by the Second Circuit. In United States v. Harris, the Court considered 18 U.S.C. §
252A(a)(5)(B), which prohibits:
knowingly possess[ing] any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or
any other material that contains an image of child pornography that has been mailed, or
56 U.S. Const., Art. 8, cl.3. provides that “The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
57 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
58 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)A).
59 U.S. v. Corp, 236 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2001) (overturning conviction of twenty-three males convicted of possessing
pornographic pictures of 17-year old girls made from materials shipped in interstate commerce, relationship to child
pornography industry attenuated); United States v. McCoy , 323 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (overturning criminal
conviction based on one picture, made from materials shipped in interstate commerce, of a mother and her child with
exposed genitals, as attenuated from commercial activity). But see United States v. Gallenardo, 540 F. Supp. 2d 1172
(9th Cir. 2007) (suggesting that the Supreme Court overruled the reasoning of McCoy in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1
(2005)).
Congressional Research Service
10
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by
computer, or that was produced using materials that have been mailed, or shipped or
transported.
Other circuits had evaluated this statute under the “effect” category, and had found that regulation
of mere possession of pornography where no commercial activity was involved was insufficient
to meet the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court.60 These cases seemed to conclude that
the fact that the materials to make the pornography had moved in “channels” of commerce (the
second category) did not preclude the application of the more rigorous requirements established
for the “effects” prong of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court has not adopted these changes to its Commerce Clause
doctrine as it relates to “channels” and “instrumentalities” of commerce, and Supreme Court dicta
does not appear to support such a change.61 Further, the Court’s decision in the case of Gonzales
v. Raich seems to indicate that, to the extent that a prohibition against the possession of illegal
contraband is important to a larger regulatory scheme restricting the sale or manufacture of such
contraband, it is likely to fall within the Necessary and Proper Clause.62
Judge Sotomayor’s decision in Harris, however, did not directly evaluate the alternative line of
Court of Appeals cases striking down 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).63 Instead, her opinion relied
on prior Second Circuit precedent considering a prohibition on child pornography. In United
States v. Holston,64 the Second Circuit upheld a prohibition on production (not possession) of
pornographic depictions based on Lopez and its progeny. In evaluating the relevance of Holston,
Judge Sotomayor noted that, for purposes of Commerce Clause analysis, she saw no distinction
between the possession of pornography and its production. Consequently, she found that no
further analysis was necessary and upheld the prohibition.65
60 United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 610-12 (four factors to be considered in determining the existence of a
“substantial effect” on commerce include whether (1) the activity at which the statute is directed is commercial or
economic in nature; (2) the statute contains an express jurisdictional element involving interstate activity that might
limit its reach; (3) Congress has made specific findings regarding the effects of the prohibited activity on interstate
commerce; and (4) the link between the prohibited conduct and a substantial effect on interstate commerce is not
attenuated.
61 For instance, the Court in Lopez held that the power to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate
commerce existed “even though the threat may only come from intrastate activities.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558.
62 545 U.S. at 21. U.S. Const., Art. 1, § 8, cl. 18 provides that “[The Congress shall have Power].... To make all Laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by
this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Clause 18: Necessary And Proper Clause.
63 The opinion did note in a footnote that “... our conclusion is consistent with that of the majority of other Circuits that
have considered this question. See Holston, 343 F.3d at 88 n.2 (collecting cases).” Harris, 358 F.3d at 223 n. 2.
64 343 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2003).
65 “The fact that Harris challenges a provision located in a different section of the Act is a distinction without a
difference. There is simply no basis for drawing a constitutional distinction between the two sections.” Harris, 358
F.3d at 223.
Congressional Research Service
11
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Article II: Executive Power66
In recent years, the Supreme Court has considered several cases involving national security.
These cases have typically concerned the scope of executive authority in the conflict with Al
Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as the rights owed to persons detained by the United States in the
course of the conflict. Court rulings in this area have often been made by a five-justice majority.67
As a result, there has been significant interest in Judge Sotomayor’s views regarding national
security. If she is confirmed, it is possible that she would cast a deciding vote in national security
cases that come before the Supreme Court in the coming years.
An examination of Judge Sotomayor’s opinions provides little guidance as to her judicial
philosophy regarding executive authority in the realm of national security. During her tenure with
the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has heard only a handful of cases concerning national
security matters. As will be discussed later,68 Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion in 2006 for a
unanimous three-judge panel in Cassidy v. Chertoff,69 holding that minimally intrusive,
suspicionless searches of passengers’ carry-on baggage and automobile trunks before boarding a
commuter ferry were justified on account of the government’s interest in deterring terrorist
attacks on large vessels involved in mass transportation. Also, as discussed previously,70 Judge
Sotomayor joined a unanimous three-judge opinion in 2008 striking down on First Amendment
grounds two provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act relating to the disclosure of the receipt of
National Security Letters.71 These cases, however, provide little indication as to how Judge
Sotomayor might rule on broader national security issues relating to executive power or the
detention of suspected terrorists.
A case currently before an en banc panel of the Second Circuit may provide further guidance as
to Judge Sotomayor’s views toward executive power on matters related to national security. The
case of Arar v. Ashcroft concerns a civil suit filed by a dual citizen of Canada and Syria who was
apprehended by U.S. immigration authorities during a flight layover at New York’s John F.
Kennedy International Airport and thereafter removed to Syria. Arar brought suit against certain
U.S. officials that he claims were responsible for transferring him to Syria, where he was
allegedly tortured and interrogated, with the acquiescence of the United States, for suspected
terrorist activities (Arar’s transfer has sometimes been characterized as an “extraordinary
rendition”). In 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Arar’s
civil case on a number of grounds, including that certain claims raised against U.S. officials
66 This portion of the report was prepared by Michael John Garcia, Legislative Attorney.
67 See Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008) (ruling 5-4 that the constitutional writ of habeas corpus extends to
non-citizens held at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba); Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)
(ruling 5-3 that military tribunals established by the President did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military
Justice or the law of war which the Code incorporated, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions). In the case of Hamdi
v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), concerning the authority of the President to detain a U.S. citizen as an enemy
combatant, no opinion was joined by a majority of the justices. However, in separate opinions, five justices recognized
the President’s authority, acting pursuant to the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (P.L. 170-40), to detain
enemy belligerents captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 518 (four-justice plurality opinion of
O’Connor, J.); id. at 588-589 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
68 See discussion in the section on “Fourth Amendment,” infra.
69 471 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2006).
70 See discussion in the section on “First Amendment: Free Speech,” supra.
71 John Doe, Inc. v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008).
Congressional Research Service
12
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
implicated national security and foreign policy considerations, and assessing the propriety of
those considerations was most appropriately reserved to Congress and the executive branch.72 A
three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the lower court’s
dismissal in 2008,73 but the circuit court subsequently agreed to rehear the case sitting en banc.
Although the circuit court has heard oral arguments in the case,74 it has yet to issue a final
decision. Presuming that Judge Sotomayor participates in the court’s final ruling, her decision
may shed further light as to her views on judicial oversight regarding executive action in the field
of national security.
Civil Rights: Generally75
Judge Sotomayor has authored a number of opinions in the area of civil rights. Although these
cases all involve claims of discrimination, such claims are made under a wide array of federal,
state, and local laws that vary significantly in the types of bias they prohibit and the classes of
individuals they protect. As a result, it is difficult to detect a pattern in Judge Sotomayor’s civil
rights rulings. Indeed, of the seven opinions she has authored in the area of civil rights, Judge
Sotomayor has ruled in favor of the party claiming discrimination in three of them and against the
party claiming discrimination in four others.
Meanwhile, Judge Sotomayor’s stance in Ricci v. DeStafano,76 a case involving allegations of
reverse discrimination by a group of white firefighters, is somewhat more ambiguous. Although
Ricci is perhaps the most well known of the civil rights cases in which she has participated, Judge
Sotomayor did not issue a written opinion in the case. Rather, a three-judge panel of the Second
Circuit that included Judge Sotomayor issued a one-paragraph unsigned opinion that summarily
affirmed the district court’s decision. Nevertheless, the case is significant because the Supreme
Court recently overturned the Second Circuit’s decision.77
In Ricci, city officials in New Haven, Connecticut declined to certify a promotional test on which
black and Hispanic firefighters had performed poorly relative to white firefighters. Several white
and Hispanic firefighters sued, claiming that the city’s actions violated, among other laws, Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of
race, color, national origin, sex, or religion,78 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
72 Arar v. Ashcroft, 414 F.Supp.2d 250 (E.D.N.Y. 2006).
73 Arar v. Ashcroft, 532 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2008). Judge Sotomayor was not on the circuit panel.
74 A video of the oral arguments is available at http://www.c-spanarchives.org/
library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=282779-1. Perhaps because of the limited number of
national security cases adjudicated by Judge Sotomayor, some observers have examined her questioning during oral
arguments in Arar v. Ashcroft for clues as to her views on national security matters. Attention has been drawn to Judge
Sotomayor’s questioning of the government’s attorney during oral arguments; in particular, her question, “So the
minute the Executive raises the specter of foreign policy, it is the government’s position that that is a license to
torture?”. Some have suggested that Judge Sotomayor’s questioning evidences skepticism regarding broad claims of
executive authority on national security matters. See Gene Healy, Op-Ed, Sotomayor: A Presidential Power Skeptic?,
Washington Examiner, June 9, 2009. However, a line of questioning during oral arguments is not always indicative of a
judge’s legal conclusions or eventual ruling in a case.
75 This portion of the report was prepared by Jody Feder, Legislative Attorney.
76 530 F. 3d 87 (2d Cir. 2008).
77 Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4945 (June 29, 2009).
78 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
Congressional Research Service
13
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Amendment, which prohibits a state from denying equal protection to its citizens.79 City officials
defended their actions, arguing that Title VII prohibits employment policies or practices that have
a disparate racial impact and that the city was in fact attempting to comply with Title VII and
avoid a lawsuit when it refused to certify test results that had a disparate impact on minority
firefighters.
The district court ultimately sided with the City of New Haven, holding that the “[d]efendants’
motivation to avoid making promotions based on a test with a racially disparate impact ... does
not ... as a matter of law, constitute discriminatory intent, and therefore such evidence is
insufficient for plaintiffs to prevail on their Title VII claim.”80 Likewise, the district court rejected
the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim, ruling that the city’s attempt to remedy the disparate impact
of the test did not constitute an intent to discriminate against the non-minority firefighters and
that the rejection of the test results did not amount to an unlawful racial classification because all
applicants were treated the same with respect to the administration and invalidation of the tests.81
As noted above, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit that included Judge Sotomayor issued a
one-paragraph affirmation of the “well-reasoned opinion” of the district court, noting that because
the city “in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title
VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were
protected.”82 Neither Judge Sotomayor nor the other judges provided additional insight into their
legal reasoning in the decision. The case has drawn considerable attention, however, not only
because of the controversial nature of the reverse discrimination allegations but also because the
Supreme Court recently reversed the Second Circuit’s decision.83
In reversing, the Court established a new standard for evaluating when avoiding disparate impact
liability excuses what otherwise would be prohibited disparate treatment under Title VII.
According to the Court, “before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the
asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must
have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails
to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.”84 It is important to note that this standard was
not in effect when Judge Sotomayor ruled in the case and therefore would not have been applied
by Judge Sotomayor or her colleagues on the Second Circuit.
Although it is difficult to characterize Judge Sotomayor’s decision in Ricci, her written opinions
in other civil rights cases provide more insight into her legal reasoning. Several of these cases
have been decided at least in part in favor of the party claiming discrimination. For example, in
Raniola v. Bratton,85 the Second Circuit considered, among other claims, allegations of sex
discrimination under Title VII made by a female police officer who had been terminated from her
job. The district court had dismissed the officer’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims
as a matter of law, but Judge Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, reversed the
lower court. Applying the standard that governs when parties move for judgment as a matter of
79 U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
80 Ricci v. DeStefano, 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 160 (D. Conn. 2006).
81 Id. at 161-62.
82 Ricci v. Destefano, 530 F.3d at 87 (2d Cir. 2008).
83 Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4945 (June 29, 2009).
84 Id. at *47.
85 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001).
Congressional Research Service
14
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
law—to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—Judge
Sotomayor examined evidence of verbal abuse, disparate treatment on the basis of sex, and
workplace sabotage and concluded that “[t]he evidence which Raniola presented and the
additional witness testimony that Raniola proffered provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury
to conclude that Raniola was subjected to a hostile work environment because she was a woman
and that Raniola was suspended, put on probation, and then terminated in retaliation for having
complained of her treatment.”86 It is important to note that Judge Sotomayor’s ruling did not
constitute a decision on the merits of the claim. Rather, by remanding the case to the lower court
for trial, Judge Sotomayor left the ultimate decision on the plaintiff’s claims of sex discrimination
and retaliation to a jury.
Similarly, in Cruz v. Coach Stores,87 the Second Circuit reviewed a Hispanic female plaintiff’s
allegations of race and sex discrimination under various federal, state, and local laws. Although
Judge Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, upheld the district court’s rejection
of virtually all of the plaintiff’s claims ─ including claims regarding failure to promote,
retaliation, discriminatory termination, and disparate impact ─ the judge did reverse the district
court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim.
Judge Sotomayor found that, unlike the other claims, the plaintiff had “established a genuine
factual dispute regarding her claim of hostile work environment harassment” on the basis of race
and sex when her allegations were viewed in the most favorable light.88 Specifically, the plaintiff
had cited repeated evidence of racial slurs by her supervisor, as well as evidence of physical and
verbal sexual harassment. Notably, the district court appeared to consider the evidence of sexual
harassment to be too vague or isolated, but Judge Sotomayor concluded that “the physically
threatening nature of [the supervisor’s] behavior, which repeatedly ended with him backing Cruz
into the wall ... brings this case over the line separating merely offensive or boorish conduct from
actionable sexual harassment.”89 The judge also emphasized that “a jury could find that [the
supervisor’s] racial harassment exacerbated the effect of his sexually threatening behavior and
vice versa.”90 As a result, although Judge Sotomayor rejected the majority of the plaintiff’s claims
of discrimination, she remanded the case for trial for an ultimate decision on the merits of the
hostile work environment claim.
Unlike the two decisions above, which were unanimous, Judge Sotomayor’s written opinion in
the remaining case in which she sided at least in part with the party claiming discrimination was a
dissenting opinion. In Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education,91 the Second Circuit examined a
case involving an elementary school student who alleged race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§
1981 and 1983, two civil rights statutes that provide a remedy for various types of
discrimination.92 Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that school officials intentionally
discriminated against him through deliberate indifference to racial hostility in the classroom and
through a decision to transfer him from first grade to kindergarten mid-way through the year. All
three judges on the panel agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support the student’s
86 Id. at 628.
87 202 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000).
88 Id. at 567.
89 Id. at 571.
90 Id. at 572.
91 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
92 For more information on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, see CRS Report RL33386, Federal Civil Rights Statutes: A
Primer, by Jody Feder.
Congressional Research Service
15
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
claim of racial hostility, but Judge Sotomayor vigorously dissented from the majority’s ruling that
the plaintiff’s claim of a discriminatory transfer lacked merit. According to the judge, the
plaintiff, who was the only black child in his class and one of only a few black children in the
entire school, had presented evidence that his transfer was “unprecedented and contrary to the
school’s established policies” and that he had suffered disparate treatment as compared to
similarly situated white students who had received transitional assistance rather than transfers
when experiencing academic difficulties.93 As a result, Judge Sotomayor reasoned that the
plaintiff’s evidence of race discrimination was sufficient for a reasonable jury to reach a verdict in
his favor and she therefore would have remanded the case for trial on the question of the
classroom transfer.
In contrast to the cases described above, Judge Sotomayor has also authored several civil rights
opinions in which she ruled or would have ruled against the party claiming discrimination. For
example, in Williams v. R.H. Donnelly Co.,94 the Second Circuit considered a black female
employee’s claim that her employer had violated Title VII’s prohibition against race and sex
discrimination by denying her various promotions, refusing to transfer her, and failing to create a
management position for her. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Sotomayor
affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer. Specifically, the judge
determined that the plaintiff had failed to establish that she was qualified for the promotions she
sought, had failed to prove that her employer’s refusal to create a position for her was motivated
by discrimination, and had failed to demonstrate that the denial of a transfer to a lesser position
constituted an adverse employment action, all prerequisites to establishing her claims.95
Likewise, in Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital, 96 Judge Sotomayor authored a
unanimous opinion rejecting race and age discrimination claims brought under state and local
laws by an older black female nurse. With regard to the race discrimination claim, Judge
Sotomayor held that the plaintiff had failed to produce evidence sufficient to support a reasonable
inference of race discrimination, in part because she had not demonstrated that similarly situated
employees of a different race were treated differently. With regard to the age discrimination
claim, the judge held that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case of
discrimination but had failed to prove that the hospital’s explanation for its actions were a pretext
for discrimination, as required by legal precedents.
In Washington v. County of Rockland,97 the Second Circuit reviewed the claims of a group of
black corrections officers who alleged, among other things, that prison officials were illegally
motivated by race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 when they pursued administrative
disciplinary proceedings against the officers. The district court held that the plaintiffs failed to file
their race discrimination claims in a timely manner, and Judge Sotomayor, writing for a
unanimous three-judge panel, affirmed, ruling that the plaintiffs had not sued until after the
statute of limitations had expired.
93 195 F.3d at 151-53.
94 368 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2004).
95 Id. at 124-25.
96 196 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 1999). The court also addressed the plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims; these claims are
discussed elsewhere in this report. See discussion in section on “Civil Rights: Individuals with Disabilities,” infra.
97 373 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2004). The officers also alleged malicious prosecution and retaliation in violation of the First
Amendment.
Congressional Research Service
16
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Finally, as discussed earlier,98 in Hankins v. Lyght,99 the Second Circuit considered a claim
brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by a minister who was forced
to retire under his church’s mandatory retirement policy. The district court dismissed the case, but
a majority of the three-judge panel reversed, ruling that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(RFRA), which generally bars the government from substantially burdening an individual’s free
exercise of religion, effectively amended the ADEA. The majority therefore remanded the case to
the district court for reconsideration under the RFRA standards.
However, Judge Sotomayor dissented, arguing that RFRA did not apply to the dispute. She
expressly criticized the majority for “violat[ing] a cardinal principle of judicial restraint” by
examining RFRA’s constitutionality,100 and she disagreed with several of the majority’s legal
conclusions regarding the applicability of the statute.101 In particular, Judge Sotomayor argued
that the court should not have reached the RFRA issue because it should have held that the ADEA
does not apply to employment discrimination lawsuits by clergy members or other employees
serving primarily religions roles. Instead, Judge Sotomayor would have avoided remand, deeming
it a “wasteful expenditure of judicial resources and an unnecessary and uninvited burden on the
parties.”102 Thus, she would have affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the age discrimination
claim.
As these cases indicate, there does not appear to be a particular pattern evident in Judge
Sotomayor’s civil rights opinions. Rather, the variety of outcomes suggests that her approach is
reasonably balanced, given that she rejects some claims while accepting others, frequently agrees
with her judicial colleagues, and rules both in favor of and against the party claiming
discrimination. As a result, her opinions seem to betray neither a particular sympathy for nor
hostility towards alleged victims of discrimination. If anything, Judge Sotomayor’s civil rights
opinions appear to be rather workmanlike, in the sense that she appears to examine the evidence,
apply precedent, and render a verdict without straying from established legal principles, actions
that are not unusual given that many of the discrimination cases she has considered do not raise
novel legal questions.
Civil Rights: Individuals with Disabilities103
Judge Sotomayor has written a number of decisions relating to the civil rights of individuals with
disabilities under various federal statutes.104 Many of her cases have related to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA),105 which is a broad civil rights act that provides nondiscrimination
protection for individuals with disabilities in many areas, including employment, public services,
and public accommodation and services operated by private entities. She also has addressed
98 See discussion in the section on “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” supra.
99 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
100 Id. at 109.
101 Id. at 109-15.
102 Id. at 118.
103 This portion of the report was prepared by Nancy Lee Jones and Carol J. Toland, Legislative Attorneys.
104 For a more detailed discussion of Judge Sotomayor’s decisions in this area see CRS Report R40640, Civil Rights of
Individuals with Disabilities: The Opinions of Judge Sotomayor, by Nancy Lee Jones and Carol J. Toland.
105 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. For a more detailed discussion of the ADA, see CRS Report 98-921, The Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA): Statutory Language and Recent Issues, by Nancy Lee Jones.
Congressional Research Service
17
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
discrimination issues which have arisen under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,106 which
prohibits discrimination against an individual with a disability in a program or activity that
receives federal financial assistance, an executive agency of the U.S. or the Postal Service,107 as
well as the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI) 108 which
ensures that “the rights of individuals with mental illness are protected.”109 Finally, Judge
Sotomayor has decided a number of cases relating to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA),110 which provides federal funding for the education of children with disabilities and
requires, as a condition for the receipt of such funds, the provision of a free appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment.111
Judge Sotomayor’s decisions have been generally supportive of claims under these statutes, but
she does not always rule in favor of plaintiffs with disabilities.112 In her most discussed decision
on disability issues, Bartlett v. New York State Board of Bar Examiners,113 Judge Sotomayor
appears to have anticipated the legislative discussions surrounding the enactment of the ADA
Amendments Act114 by finding that the use of self accommodations did not mean that the plaintiff
was not an individual with a disability. In Bartlett, the plaintiff argued that she should be given
reasonable accommodations when taking the New York bar exam because of her dyslexia. In
evaluating whether the plaintiff was disabled, Judge Sotomayor observed that “[a] definition of
disability based on outcomes alone, particularly in the context of learning disabilities, would
prevent a court from finding a disability in the case of any individual like Dr. Bartlett who is
extremely bright and hardworking, and who uses alternative routes to achieve academic
success.”115 While analyzing the statutory and regulatory language, Judge Sotomayor also
examined the implications of various legal arguments on the overall intent of the ADA.
106 29 U.S.C. § 794. See Pell v. Columbia University, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 407 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 21, 1998).
107 For a more detailed discussion of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, see CRS Report RL34041, Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Prohibiting Discrimination Against Individuals with Disabilities in Programs or
Activities Receiving Federal Assistance, by Nancy Lee Jones.
108 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq.
109 42 U.S.C. § 10801(b).
110 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
111 For a detailed discussion of IDEA as amended by the 2004 reauthorization, see CRS Report RL32913, The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Interactions with Selected Provisions of the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB), by Richard N. Apling and Nancy Lee Jones, and CRS Report R40521, The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA): Supreme Court and Selected Lower Court Decisions, by Nancy Lee Jones and Carol J. Toland.
112 See, e.g., Valentine v. Standard & Poor’s, 50 F.Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), where Judge Sotomayor rejected an
ADA employment discrimination claim stating: “the ADA does not immunize disabled employees from discipline or
discharge for incidents of misconduct in the workplace.” Id. at 289.
113 2001 U.S. District LEXIS 11926 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2001). See, e.g., Jim Dwyer, On the Bench with Fairness and
Empathy, New York Times A-21 (May 27, 2009). This decision was the final one in a long procedural odyssey. 970 F.
Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (opinion by Judge Sotomayor), reconsideration denied, 2 F. Supp. 2d 388 (S.D.N.Y.
1997) (opinion by Judge Sotomayor), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 156 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 1998), vacated remanded by
527 U.S. 1031 (1999), aff’d in part, vacated in part, remanded in part, 226 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2000), on remand, 2001
U.S. District LEXIS 11926 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2001) (opinion by Judge Sotomayor).
114 P.L. 110-325. For a more detailed discussion see CRS Report RL34691, The ADA Amendments Act: P.L. 110-325,
by Nancy Lee Jones.
115 A colloquy was held during the House debates on the ADA Amendments Act between Representatives Pete Stark
and George Miller on the subject of the meaning of “substantially limits” in the context of learning, reading, writing,
thinking, or speaking. The colloquy found that an individual who has performed well academically may still be
considered an individual with a disability.153 Cong. Rec. H. 8291 (September 17, 2008).
Congressional Research Service
18
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Similarly, in Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v.
Hartford Board of Education,116 Judge Sotomayor, writing for the court, addressed whether
various federal statutes provided that the Connecticut Protection and Advocacy system should
have access to a nonresidential school for children with serious emotional disturbances in order to
investigate allegations of abuse and neglect. Finding that the system had such rights, Judge
Sotomayor examined the purposes of the law to protect the legal and human rights of individuals
with developmental disabilities and found that these purposes were not limited by the fact that a
section of the act specifically provided authority to investigate certain incidents.
Judge Sotomayor’s opinions often turn on the particular facts presented. For example, in Pell v.
Columbia University,117 the facts surrounding the allegations of hostility to the plaintiff’s dyslexia
and the alleged discrimination regarding a foreign language requirement were closely examined.
Similarly, in two fact-specific decisions regarding the application of the ADA’s statute of
limitations, Judge Sotomayor arrived at two different rulings.118
In her decisions, Judge Sotomayor examined the statutory language at issue,119 as well as the
applicable regulations and guidance120 to inform her decisions. She also has relied upon the
reasoning of other circuits in arriving at her decisions.121 In the IDEA context, Judge Sotomayor
has been described as “representative of the mainstream of prevailing judicial outcomes in K-12
education.”122
Election Law123
During her tenure on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has not written extensively in the area
of election law. Therefore, it is difficult to infer a great deal about her philosophy in the area. In a
ballot access decision, she demonstrated careful consideration of the facts and a strong reliance
on past precedent. Dissenting in a case involving the Voting Rights Act and felony
disenfranchisement, her approach to statutory interpretation revealed an apparent preference for
adhering to the plain meaning of the text, while simultaneously expressing deference to Congress.
116 464 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2006).
117 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 407 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 1998).
118 Compare Lloret v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3999 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and Brown v.
Parkchester South Condominiums, 287 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2002).
119 See, e.g., Protection & Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Mental Health & Addiction Services, 448 F.3d 119
(2d Cir. 2006).
120 See, e.g., Bartlett v. New York State Board of Bar Examiners, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 407 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 1998);
Norville v. Staten Island University,196 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 1999); Taylor v. Vermont Department of Education et al., 313
F.3d 768 (2d Cir. 2002).
121 Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000); Protection & Advocacy for Persons
Disabilities v. Mental Health & Addiction Services, 448 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006).
122 Erik W. Robelen, School Rulings by Sotomayor Eyed, Education Week, June 5, 2009, http://www.edweek.org/ew/
articles/2009/06/10/33sotomayor-2.h28.html?tkn=PXZFVopNh%2BllvMFiMtnJ1S6WDo5b9VocboEX&print=1
(quoting Perry A. Zirkel, Professor of Education and Law at Lehigh University).
123 This portion of the report was prepared by L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney.
Congressional Research Service
19
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Ballot Access
In Rivera-Powell v. N.Y. City Board of Elections,124 the Second Circuit, affirming a district court
decision, rejected a claim by a New York City judicial candidate alleging that violations of state
law ─ removal of her name from the ballot based on alleged petition irregularities ─ resulted in
deprivation of rights under the Fourteenth and First Amendments.125 In rejecting these claims,
Judge Sotomayor’s opinion demonstrated reliance on the facts presented, as well as on existing
Second Circuit and Supreme Court case law, and the result was consistent with established
precedents that court intervention in ordinary election disputes is inappropriate.
In analyzing the due process claim in Rivera-Powell, Judge Sotomayor’s opinion observed that
judicial candidate Rivera-Powell received at least some type of pre-deprivation hearing, and that
the record indicated that this hearing afforded her notice and the opportunity to be heard. The
opinion further noted that analogous case law indicates that such a hearing comports with key
requirements of due process.126 Of greater importance, she determined that, subsequent to the
Board’s action, Rivera-Powell was given an opportunity for complete judicial review through a
special proceeding under New York Election Law § 16-102 providing for expedited designation
proceedings. According to Judge Sotomayor’s opinion, “[t]he combination of these two
procedures satisfies due process.”127
In rejecting the First Amendment claim, Judge Sotomayor’s opinion found that it was “virtually
indistinguishable” from Rivera-Powell’s due process claim because she failed to allege additional
and independent deprivation of interests.128 Specifically, the opinion observed that Rivera-Powell
did not challenge the state law requiring a certain number of signatures for ballot access or the
law specifying requirements for objections, and that she did not contend that the Board of
Elections’ rules regarding submission of petitions or the filing of objections violated her rights in
any respect. Instead, the opinion notes, she claimed that the Board applied these limitations
illegally, burdening her right to participate in the electoral process. As a result, according to the
opinion, her First Amendment claim was inextricably linked with the question of whether the
state afforded her with procedurally adequate process.
Thus, Judge Sotomayor’s opinion concluded: “[w]hen, as here, a plaintiff challenges a Board of
Election decision not as stemming from a constitutionally or statutorily invalid law or regulation,
but rather as contravening a law or regulation whose validity the plaintiff does not contest, there
is no independent burden on First Amendment rights when the state provides adequate procedures
by which to remedy the alleged illegality.”129 Cautioning that “a contrary holding would permit
any plaintiff to obtain federal court review of even the most mundane election dispute merely by
adding a First Amendment claim to his or her due process claim,” the opinion concluded that it
124 470 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2006).
125 The candidate, Verena Rivera-Powell, also argued that the Board of Elections denied her equal protection of the
laws by removing her name from the ballot because of her race. This claim was found to be was found to be without
merit because the allegation of racial discrimination was conclusory. See id. at 470.
126 See id. at 466-67 (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 545-46 (1985)).
127 Id. at 467.
128 Id. at 468.
129 Id. at 469.
Congressional Research Service
20
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
“would thereby undermine our holding – one which we share with many other circuits – that
court intervention in ‘garden variety’ election disputes is inappropriate.”130
Voting Rights Act and Felony Disenfranchisement
In Hayden v. Pataki,131 an en banc Second Circuit decision, affirming the district court, rejected a
challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)132 to a New York statute
disenfranchising currently incarcerated felons and felons on parole. Section 2 of the VRA
prohibits any voting qualification, standard, practice or procedure from being imposed by any
state in a manner resulting in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on
account of race or color. The court held that the VRA did not to cover felony disenfranchisement
provisions because Congress did not intend or understand the VRA to encompass this type of
statute, that such application of the VRA would alter the constitutional balance between the states
and the federal government, and that Congress did not clearly indicate that it intended the VRA to
alter the balance of government in such a manner. In addition to joining the main dissent from the
en banc court decision, Judge Sotomayor also wrote separately, maintaining that the VRA applies
to all voting qualifications, which include a state law disqualifying certain individuals from
voting. Judge Sotomayor’s dissent, while arguably demonstrating a heavy reliance on the plain
meaning of the statute, expresses deference to Congress.
In its decision, the Second Circuit characterized this case as presenting a “complex and difficult
question” that, without congressional clarification, would require Supreme Court resolution.133 It
also noted that it has considered this question in the past without resolution, resulting in an evenly
divided court.134 In further support of its characterization of the issue, it pointed out that the
Eleventh Circuit has ruled that the VRA does not encompass felony disenfranchisement, while the
Ninth Circuit has found that it does.135
Beginning its analysis with a recitation of principles of statutory interpretation, the court noted
that in interpreting a statute, the language of the statute itself must first be examined. If the
statutory terms are unambiguous, the inquiry ends, and the statute is construed according to the
plain meaning of its words. Relying on a Supreme Court case, Robinson v. Shell Oil,136 the court
acknowledged that the language of Section 2 is extremely broad, and without consideration of the
larger context, could be interpreted to include felony disenfranchisement. Finding that there were
persuasive reasons to conclude that Congress did not intend to include felony disenfranchisement
within VRA coverage, the court decided that it must look beyond the plain meaning of the statute.
In so doing, the court embarked upon a comprehensive analysis of congressional intent behind the
VRA, its amendments, and subsequent election laws, concluding that Congress did not intend or
understand the VRA to apply to felon disenfranchisement.
130 Id. (citing Shannon v. Jacobowitz, 394 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 2005)).
131 449 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2006).
132 See 42 U.S.C. § 1973.
133 Hayden, 449 F.3d at 310.
134 Id. at 313 (citing Baker v. Pataki, 85 F.3d 919 (2d Cir. 1996) (en banc)).
135 Id. (citing Johnson v. Gov. of State of Florida, 405 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2005) (en banc), Farrakhan v. Washington,
359 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2004)).
136 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997) (stating “the plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is dictated by the language
itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole”).
Congressional Research Service
21
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
In sharp contrast to the majority decision, Judge Sotomayor, in a separate dissent written “to
emphasize one point,” disagreed that the issue under consideration was complex.137 According to
her dissent, “[i]t is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all ‘voting
qualifications.’”138 Further, she maintained that the New York felony disenfranchisement law
clearly disqualifies a particular group of people from the right to vote. Therefore, Judge
Sotomayor determined that the entire analysis in this case should have been limited only to those
two propositions, and announced that it is “[t]he duty of a judge to follow the law, not to question
its plain terms.”139 Congress does not want the courts to disregard the “plain language” of any
statutory provision or to “invent exceptions” to its statutes, the judge admonished. Specifically
criticizing the evidence presented by the majority opinion in support of its conclusion, Judge
Sotomayor pointed out that the legislative history is void of even one Member of Congress
expressly stating that felony disenfranchisement laws are beyond the reach of the VRA. Her
dissent concluded that even if Congress doubted whether felony disenfranchisement laws should
be subject to Section 2 of the VRA, “Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself,
rather than have courts do so for it.”140
Abortion141
During her tenure with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has
not addressed substantive legal questions involving abortion, such as the extent of the
Constitution’s protection of a woman’s right to choose. Judge Sotomayor has, however, authored
opinions that have examined the impact of foreign funding restrictions on domestic nonprofit
organizations that promote abortion, and has discussed the effect of forced abortions and
involuntary family planning practices in the context of applications for asylum. These opinions
illustrate Judge Sotomayor’s concern for precedent and her general adherence to established legal
standards.
As discussed previously,142 in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush,143 the Second
Circuit considered an appeal brought by a nonprofit organization devoted to the promotion of
reproductive rights. The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (“CRLP”) challenged the
federal government’s policy of conditioning the availability of U.S. government funds for foreign
nongovernmental organizations on their agreement to neither perform nor promote abortion.
CRLP argued that the so-called “Mexico City Policy” deprived the organization of its rights to
freedom of speech and association under the First Amendment by limiting its interactions and
communications with foreign nongovernmental organizations.144 CRLP maintained that the
137 Hayden, 449 F.3d at 367 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
138 Id. at 367-68.
139 Id. at 368.
140 Id.
141 This portion of the report was prepared by Jon O. Shimabukuro, Legislative Attorney.
142 See supra note 6 and accompanying text.
143 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002).
144 The restriction on federal funds to foreign nongovernmental organizations is referred to as the “Mexico City Policy”
because it was first announced at a 1984 United Nations conference in Mexico City. Pursuant to the Mexico City
Policy, foreign nongovernmental organizations that were interested in receiving U.S. government funds had to agree to
a provision called the “standard clause” in family planning agreements and contracts with the United States Agency for
International Development. The standard clause prohibited the organizations from engaging in activities that promoted
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Mexico City Policy discouraged foreign nongovernmental organizations from collaborating with
it because the organizations feared being viewed as promoting abortion.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of CRLP’s claim on the grounds that
the Mexico City Policy did not prohibit the organization from exercising its First Amendment
rights. Writing for the court, Judge Sotomayor relied heavily on Planned Parenthood Federation
of America, Inc. v. Agency for International Development,145 a 1990 decision by the Second
Circuit that also involved a First Amendment challenge to the Mexico City Policy by a domestic
nonprofit organization. Judge Sotomayor explained: “Planned Parenthood not only controls this
case conceptually; it presented the same issue. Planned Parenthood rejected the same First
Amendment challenge to the same provision ... and no intervening Supreme Court case law alters
its precedential value.”146
While the district court dismissed CRLP’s claim on the grounds that the organization lacked
standing under Article III of the Constitution, the Second Circuit reached its decision after
considering the merits of the claim and declining to resolve the standing question. After
reviewing several decisions by the Supreme Court involving the assumption of standing by a
court in order to proceed directly to the merits of a case, the Second Circuit reasoned that where a
governmental provision is challenged as unconstitutional and another case has already entertained
and rejected the same constitutional challenge to the same provision, a court may dispose of the
case on the merits without addressing a novel question of jurisdiction.
Citing Planned Parenthood, the Second Circuit maintained that the Mexico City Policy did not
implicate any constitutional rights. Domestic nonprofit organizations remained free to use their
own funds to pursue abortion-related activities in foreign countries. The decision not to
collaborate with CRLP because of the acceptance of U.S. government funds by a foreign
nongovernmental organization had only an “incidental effect” on the activities of the CRLP that
did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
In Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice,147 the Second Circuit reviewed three orders issued by the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that denied applications for asylum submitted by three
unmarried partners of individuals who were forced to have abortions in China. The BIA’s denials
were based on its conclusion that spouses of individuals who were forced to abort a pregnancy or
submit to involuntary sterilization, but not the unmarried partners of such individuals, could
automatically qualify for asylum as refugees under federal immigration law. In reviewing the
BIA’s orders, the Second Circuit sought to determine whether § 601(a) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which amended the definition for the term
“refugee” to include individuals who were forced to abort a pregnancy or submit to involuntary
sterilization, was ambiguous, so that the BIA’s construction of the term was entitled to deference.
(...continued)
abortion. In January 2009, President Barack Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. For additional information on
the Mexico City Policy, see CRS Report RL33250, International Population Assistance and Family Planning
Programs: Issues for Congress, by Luisa Blanchfield.
145 915 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1990).
146 CRLP, 304 F.3d at 190.
147 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 2472 (2008).
Congressional Research Service
23
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
The Second Circuit evaluated the BIA’s interpretation of § 601(a) in accordance with the
principles articulated by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC. In Chevron, the Suprme
Court established a two-part test for determining when an agency’s interpretation of a statute that
it administers is entitled to deference. First, a reviewing court will consider whether Congress has
spoken on the question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, the court must “give effect to
the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” If the statute is silent or ambiguous, however, a
court will examine whether the agency’s interpretation constitutes a permissible construction of
the statute.
The Second Circuit, however, not only held that unmarried partners of persons who were
threatened with forced abortion or involuntary sterilization were not entitled to asylum, but that
the BIA’s interpretation of § 601(a) extending such protections to spouses was also unfounded.
The court held that Congress had spoken unambiguously about who may be deemed a refugee for
purposes of asylum eligibility, and that nothing in the definition of the term “refugee” permits a
person to obtain asylum if he or she has not personally experienced persecution or a well-rounded
fear of future persecution. It explained:
We do not deny that an individual whose spouse undergoes, or is threatened with, a forced
abortion or involuntary sterilization may suffer a profound emotional loss as a partner and a
potential parent. But such a loss does not change the requirement that we must follow the
“ordinary meaning” of the language chosen by Congress, according to which an individual
does not automatically qualify for “refugee” status on account of a coercive procedure
performed on someone else.148
Thus, the Second Circuit maintained that § 601(a) seemed to deny asylum protection to the
spouses of individuals forced to abort a pregnancy or submit to involuntary sterilization, as well
as the unmarried partners of such individuals.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Sotomayor criticized the majority opinion for its lack of judicial
restraint. In response to the majority’s conclusion that even spouses of individuals forced to abort
a pregnancy or submit to involuntary sterilization may not be automatically eligible for asylum,
Judge Sotomayor noted:
Instead of answering the limited question before us – whether the BIA’s denial of asylum to
the unmarried partners of women forced to undergo abortions or sterilization was
unreasonable – the majority has chosen to go beyond it to address an issue that is unbriefed,
unargued, and unnecessary to resolve this appeal.149
Judge Sotomayor noted that because Congress did not indicate how direct the harm or injury must
be before it can be determined that an individual suffers persecution and should be considered a
“refugee” for purposes of asylum protection, the BIA’s construction of the term should be entitled
to deference so long as it is reasonable. Judge Sotomayor maintained that the majority opinion
failed to explain why the harm of forced abortion or sterilization constituted persecution only for
the person undergoing the procedure and not for the spouse. Forced abortion, Judge Sotomayor
observed, could be devastating for the spouse, as well as the woman:
148 Id. at 309.
149 Id. at 327.
Congressional Research Service
24
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can
only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child ... In the end, I fail
to understand how the majority can claim that the harm caused by a spouse’s forced abortion
or sterilization is not a personal harm to both spouses – either or both of whom can be
sterilized for violations of the population control programs – especially given the unique
biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-
rearing and parenthood in marriage.150
In Zheng v. Gonzales,151 the Second Circuit reviewed a BIA order that dismissed an appeal by a
woman seeking asylum based on the involuntary insertion of an intrauterine device (“IUD”). The
immigration judge that first considered the petitioner’s case denied her application for asylum on
the grounds that IUD implantation did not constitute persecution and that “Congress did not
intend to include birth control methods other than abortion or forced sterilization in its definition
of persecution.... ”152 The BIA agreed with the immigration judge and noted that Zheng had not
been persecuted, in part, because she did not experience a “significant degree of pain or
restriction as a result of the procedure.”153 The BIA also acknowledged the widespread use of
IUDs as a method of birth control and observed that there is nothing so inherently egregious
about the procedure to conclude that Zheng was persecuted.
Judge Sotomayor, writing for the court, remanded the case to the BIA “so that it might articulate
its position concerning whether and under what conditions the forced insertion of an IUD
constitutes persecution.”154 The BIA had taken contrary positions on whether the involuntary
insertion of an IUD constituted persecution, finding in at least one other case that such insertion
was persecution. Judge Sotomayor also noted that the BIA had not discussed the issue in a
published, precedential opinion. The BIA’s failure to explain when the involuntary insertion of an
IUD would constitute persecution “deprive[d] the bench, the bar and potential asylum applicants
of guidance concerning whether and how they might approach the issue.”155
Freedom of Information Act156
During her 11 years as a federal appellate judge, Judge Sotomayor has authored two opinions
involving the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).157 Both of the FOIA decisions – Tigue v.
150 Id. at 330-31.
151 497 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2007).
152 Id. at 202.
153 Id.
154 Id. at 203-04. Although the BIA acknowledged that a number of circuit courts of appeals had suggested that
nonviolent, involuntary IUD insertions might constitute persecution, it nevertheless concluded in Zheng that
involuntary insertion did not constitute persecution.
155 Id. at 203 (“The BIA’s opinion in Zheng’s case was non-precedential and was signed by a single member of the
Board.”).
156 This portion of the report was prepared by Gina Stevens, Legislative Attorney.
157 Tigue v. Department of Justice, 312 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 2002); Wood v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 432 F.3d 78
(2d Cir. 2005). Judge Sotomayor joined a few other opinions in FOIA cases that resulted in issuance of summary orders
by the Second Circuit. She also authored an opinion addressing the Privacy Act of 1974. See Bechhoefer v. Department
of Justice, 209 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that “record” under the Privacy Act has a “broad meaning
encompassing” any personal information “about an individual that is linked to that individual through an identifying
particular”).
Congressional Research Service
25
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Department of Justice and Wood v. Federal Bureau of Investigation – upheld the withholding of
requested records by the government. Because the opinions are few and relied on relevant
Supreme Court precedent, it is difficult to draw conclusions from them regarding her overall
approach to FOIA or to related matters such as individual privacy or transparency in government.
FOIA applies to records held by agencies of the executive branch of the federal government.158
With the exception of three special law enforcement exclusions and records already made
available for publication or inspection, all other federal agency records may be requested under
the FOIA. Agencies are required to make records not subject to a FOIA exemption available upon
request. Nine categories of information may be exempted from FOIA disclosure.159 Judge
Sotomayor’s opinions primarily involved exemptions 5 and 6—regarding inter- and intra-agency
memoranda and disclosures which would invade personal privacy, respectively. In both opinions,
Judge Sotomayor noted that the Supreme Court has mandated that FOIA’s exemptions are to be
construed narrowly.
Exemption 5
FOIA’s Exemption 5 applies to “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which
would not be made available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the
agency.”160 In the two Second Circuit FOIA opinions authored by Judge Sotomayor, the court
examined the scope and application of two privileges incorporated into FOIA Exemption 5 – the
deliberative process privilege and the attorney work-product privilege. The deliberative process
privilege protects advice, recommendations, and opinions from disclosure. The rationale behind
the privilege is to promote candid and frank discussion in agency deliberations, to protect against
premature disclosure of agency deliberations, and to ensure that agencies are judged only by their
final decisions.161 The attorney work-product privilege protects documents prepared by an
attorney for litigation that reflect her theory of the case or litigation strategy.
In Tigue v. Department of Justice,162 the Second Circuit held that a memorandum prepared by an
Assistant United States Attorney for a commission tasked by the IRS with conducting a review of
the IRS’s Criminal Investigations Department was an “inter-agency” communication protected by
the deliberative process privilege and thus properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 5. In
concluding that the privilege applied, Judge Sotomayor wrote that although the Commission was
not an “agency” in the traditional sense, the entity acted as a consultant to (i.e., an agent of) the
IRS. Consequently, the memorandum was properly considered to be an inter-agency
communication between the U.S. Attorney’s office and the IRS. Her opinion considered the
court’s conclusion in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of the Interior v.
Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n,163 where the Court found that correspondence between an
Indian Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs was not exempt from disclosure as inter-agency or
158 5 U.S.C. § 552.
159 5 U.S.C. § 552(b).
160 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5).
161 See, e.g., Michael N. Kennedy, Comment, Escaping the Fishbowl: A Proposal To Fortify The Deliberative Process
Privilege, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1769, 1789 (2005); Michael Ray Harris, Standing In The Way of Judicial Review:
Assertion of the Deliberative Process Privilege in APA Cases, 53 St. Louis L. J. 349 (2009).
162 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, Tigue v. DOJ, 538 U.S. 1056 (2003).
163 532 U.S. 1 (2001) .
Congressional Research Service
26
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
intra-agency communication. Unlike the Klamath Tribe, which advocated its own positions in the
judicial proceedings, the Second Circuit found that the commission was more akin to the agency’s
own personnel in that it was not representing its own interest, but that of the IRS.
Because the memorandum was specifically prepared for use by the commission in assisting the
IRS in its future decision making, the court held that the document fell within the pre-decisional
prong of Exemption 5.164 It also rejected the argument that the memorandum lost its privileged
status because it was incorporated by reference in the commission’s report to the IRS. As
delineated in a Supreme Court case, NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., an agency may be required
to disclose a document otherwise entitled to protection if the agency has expressly adopted or
incorporated the document by reference in a final opinion.165 Applying Sears, Judge Sotomayor
concluded that minor references166 in the Report to the Memo were not an adoption or
incorporation in a final opinion and did not result in the government’s waiver of the deliberative
process privilege.167 Moreover, she noted that the memorandum was not a “final opinion” because
the report was not written by IRS officials.
In Wood v. Federal Bureau of Investigation,168 discussed below, the Second Circuit, in an opinion
written by Judge Sotomayor, similarly held that a prosecution memorandum fell within the
attorney work-product privilege and thus was properly withheld under Exemption 5.
Exemption 6
Exemption 6 of FOIA protects from disclosure “personnel and medical files and similar files the
disclosure of which would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”169 As
delineated in a Supreme Court case, Department of State v. Washington Post Co.,170 the term
“similar files” has “a broad, rather than narrow, meaning” and applies to “detailed government
records on an individual which can be identified as applying to that individual.”171 In addition, the
determination of Exemption 6’s applicability entails a “balancing of private against public
interests” rather than an examination of “the nature of the files.”172
In Wood,173 the Second Circuit evaluated whether Exemption 6 protected documents containing
the names of government investigators in an internal FBI probe. Writing for the court, Judge
Sotomayor employed a two-part test, first determining whether the information is contained in a
file “similar” to a medical or personnel file,174 and then balancing the public’s need for the
164 Tigue, 312 F.3d at 80 (citing Grand Cent. P’ship v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1989)).
165 421 U.S. 132 (1975).
166 Tigue, 312 F.3d at 74 -74. The memo is referenced in a footnote, and an excerpt of the memo is quoted in the
Commission’s Report.
167 Id. at 81 (citing Access Reports v. Dep’t of Justice, 926 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Common Cause v. IRS, 646
F.2d 656, 660 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).
168 Wood v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 432 F. 3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005).
169 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).
170 456 U.S. 595 (1982).
171 Id. at 599, 602.
172 Id. at 600.
173 432 F. 3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005).
174 Id. at 86 (citing Dep’t of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 601 (1982)).
Congressional Research Service
27
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
information against the individual’s privacy interest to determine whether the disclosure of names
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.175 With regard to whether the
files at issue were “similar” to medical or personnel files, the court found that personnel and
medical files contain information about a person, and that administrative investigative files were
also likely to contain information about the subject of the investigation and third parties such as
witnesses.176 The court held that any personal information, not limited to information about the
subject of an investigation, contained in files similar to personnel or medical files is subject to the
balancing analysis under Exemption 6. It then balanced the investigators “broad” privacy interest
against possible harassment and embarrassment against the public’s interest in information that
would shed light on an agency’s performance of its duties. Judge Sotomayor’s opinion concluded
that the public’s interest in knowing the identity of the investigators was minimal at best because
it would add little to the public’s understanding of how the agency performed its duties. Thus, it
was insufficient to overcome the employees’ substantial interest in preventing public disclosure of
their names.
Criminal Law177
Based to some extent on her opinions in Fourth Amendment cases – in particular on two opinions
she has written in cases involving the typical remedy for Fourth Amendment violations, the so-
called “exclusionary rule” – some commentators have speculated that Judge Sotomayor would be
more likely to rule in favor of police or prosecutors in criminal cases than was Justice Souter.178
However, it is difficult to glean any strong evidence of such an inclination from her appellate
court opinions. She has authored several opinions in the criminal law area, and joined others, in
which the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the police or government. On the other hand, she has
authored opinions on behalf of the court that reach the opposite outcome. In addition, in cases in
which Judge Sotomayor has split with her panel colleagues to write a dissenting opinion, her
arguments have generally favored defendants. More than any other unifying characteristic, her
appellate opinions in the criminal justice area, as in many other areas, demonstrate her strong
adherence to precedent.
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a right “of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”179 The
reasonableness inquiry is prompted when government either conducts a “search” by invading a
person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” or conducts a “seizure” by “meaningfully
interfering” with a person’s possessory interest or freedom of movement.180 As a general rule,
175 Id. (citing Dep’t of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 175 (1991)).
176 Id. (citing Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. at 600-01).
177 This portion of the report was prepared by Anna C. Henning and Alison M. Smith, Legislative Attorneys.
178 See, e.g., Jess Bravin and Nathan Koppel, Nominee’s Criminal Rulings Tilt to Right of Souter, Wall St. J. June 5,
2009 at A3.
179 U.S. Const. amend. IV.
180 See Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 716 (1983) (Brennan, J.,
concurring in result).
Congressional Research Service
28
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
reasonableness requires “probable cause” and either a warrant or a warrant exception.181
However, in some circumstances, for example when the government demonstrates a “special
need,” courts conduct a “reasonableness balancing” inquiry rather than requiring probable cause.
During her tenure on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has written several opinions in cases
with Fourth Amendment implications. Most, if not all, of these concern the reasonableness of a
search or seizure, but some address additional questions such as whether evidence collected
pursuant to a Fourth Amendment violation must be excluded at trial.
Reasonableness of a Search or Seizure
In United States v. Gori182 and N.G. ex rel. S.C. v. Connecticut,183 Judge Sotomayor wrote
dissenting opinions in which she argued for a stronger protection from unreasonable searches and
seizures than the majority opinion allowed. In Gori, police officers suspected, based on an
informant’s tips, that an apartment might contain evidence of drugs. Relying on that evidence,
they stood on either side of a food delivery person, who happened to be making a delivery to the
apartment, as she knocked on the apartment door. After the door opened, the officers announced
their presence and ordered all of the apartment’s occupants into the hallway. The officers
questioned the occupants, obtained signatures on consent forms, and completed a full search of
the apartment. At issue on appeal of the subsequent conviction was whether a Supreme Court
case, Payton v. New York,184 applied. Stating that “the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at
the entrance to the house,” Payton established a heightened standard that police officer’s must
meet in order to enter a home.185 Applying another Supreme Court case, Santana v. United
States,186 the majority held that because the apartment occupants had opened the door and
exposed the apartment interior to the officers, they lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy and
thus the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, and the heightened Payton standard, did not
apply. In dissent, Judge Sotomayor argued that the majority had misapplied Santana and that the
heightened protection should have applied under Payton. In having argued for special protection
for the home, Judge Sotomayor stated that “I agree [with Scalia’s view, articulated in Arizona v.
Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 329 (1987)] that the Fourth Amendment’s protection of the home is worth ...
preservation.”187
In N.G. ex rel. S.C.,188 a case involving strip searches of adolescent girls in a juvenile detention
facility, Judge Sotomayor dissented from the part of the majority opinion which had upheld the
strip searches. In upholding the searches, the majority had relied on the “special needs” doctrine,
under which a search or seizure is subject to a balancing test rather than the ordinary probable
cause or warrant requirements. The doctrine applies when the government has articulated a
“special nee[d], beyond the normal need for law enforcement, [made] the warrant and probable
181 See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001).
182 230 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2000).
183 382 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2004).
184 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
185 Id. at 589-90.
186 427 U.S. 38 (1976).
187 Id. at 65.
188 382 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2004) (Sotomayor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Congressional Research Service
29
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
cause requirements impracticable.”189 Although she agreed that the government had a special
need to search girls in the facility, she disagreed that the strip search method, in particular, bore a
sufficiently “close and substantial” relationship to the government’s special need.190
In contrast, Judge Sotomayor authored opinions in several cases in which the Second Circuit held
that a government search was reasonable and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In
Leventhal v. Knapek,191 the New York State Department of Transportation had searched one of its
employee’s computers as part of an investigation of employee misconduct. Writing for the court,
Judge Sotomayor noted that governments must abide by the Fourth Amendment prohibition
against unreasonable searches and seizures even in their role as employers.192 However, she
applied a Supreme Court precedent, O’Connor v. Ortega,193 to hold that although the employee
had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer, the government’s
search was not unreasonable because it was both “‘justified at its inception’ and of appropriate
scope,” specifically because the Department had various indications that the employee had been
misusing his work computer.194
In Cassidy v. Chertoff, 195 also discussed previously,196 Judge Sotomayor demonstrated a
deference to government in the national security context. Pursuant to legislation enacted after the
9/11 terrorist attacks,197 the U.S. Coast Guard required specified vessels to undertake various
security measures, including, in some cases, the screening of passengers’ vehicles or bags. The
plaintiffs in Cassidy were two Vermont residents who regularly commuted on a ferry which had
imposed searches on passengers’ belongings pursuant to the statute. Despite alleging that they
feared repercussions if they did not acquiesce in the searches, the plaintiffs sued, seeking a
declaratory judgment and an injunction preventing the searches. Writing for the court, Judge
Sotomayor applied the special needs doctrine. After a thorough discussion of the various interests
involved, she concluded that the government’s interest in the searches outweighed the intrusion
on the plaintiffs’ privacy.
Finally, in an opinion written by Sotomayor in a 2007 case, United States v. Howard, the Second
Circuit held that the warrantless search of a defendant’s automobile was not a Fourth Amendment
violation because the police had established probable cause to support the search based on six
phone calls in which cocaine was discussed.198
189 Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1986) (citing New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun,
J., concurring)).
190 N.G. ex rel. S.C, 382 F.3d at 239 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
191 266 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2001).
192 Id. at 73 (citing Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 65 (1989)).
193 480 U.S. 709 (1987).
194 Id. at 75 (citing O’Connor, 480 U.S. at 726).
195 471 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2006).
196 See supra note 69 and accompanying text.
197 Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, 46 U.S.C. §§ 70101-70119.
198 489 F.3d 484 (2d Cir. 2007).
Congressional Research Service
30
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Exclusionary Rule
The “exclusionary rule” is a remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures. To deter Fourth Amendment violations, the rule requires
courts to forbid the prosecution’s use of evidence obtained as a result of an unconstitutional
search or seizure.199
In United States v. Leon,200 the Supreme Court introduced what has come to be known as the
good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Under Leon, the exclusionary rule does not apply
when police officers act with “objectively reasonable reliance” on a search warrant later found to
be invalid. Subsequently, in Arizona v. Evans,201 the Supreme Court applied Leon to evidence
obtained after an arrest based on a facially valid warrant that the clerk of the court had neglected
to show had been quashed seventeen days earlier.
Judge Sotomayor authored two opinions – United States v. Santa and United States v. Falso – as
an appellate judge which some commentators have characterized as having extended precedents
that narrowed the scope of the exclusionary rule by expanding the Leon good-faith exception.202
In both cases, she applied Supreme Court precedent to hold that the rule was inapplicable, thus
allowing the convictions to stand. However, although the outcomes favored the prosecutors in
both cases, Judge Sotomayor’s opinions relied on, but arguably did not extend, relevant Supreme
Court precedents.203
Judge Sotomayor most recently applied the good-faith exception in United States v. Falso.204 In
Falso, FBI officers obtained a warrant to search David Falso’s home after connecting a login
name used to access a website containing child pornography with Falso’s Yahoo! account. Writing
for the court, Judge Sotomayor held, first, that the search warrant had been granted without
sufficient probable cause. Nonetheless, she then applied the good-faith exception to the
exclusionary rule to allow the prosecution’s use of the evidence. The two other Second Circuit
judges sitting on the panel each joined with one part of this opinion. In the first part of the
opinion, Judge Sotomayor distinguished this case from a prior Second Circuit case, United States
v. Martin,205 in which the court had held that a defendant’s membership in a website containing
child pornography was sufficient to establish probable cause to justify a warrant for a search.
199 Although it was not termed the “exclusionary rule” until later, the Supreme Court first clearly articulated a remedy
of excluding evidence as a result of Fourth Amendment violations in Weeks v. United States. 232 U.S. 383, 393 (1914)
(“If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an
offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment ... is of no value”). Although the Weeks holding applied only to
evidence obtained by federal officers, the Court later applied the rule to the states in Mapp v. Ohio. 367 U.S. 643, 655
(1961).
200 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984).
201 514 U.S. 1 (1995).
202 See id.
203 In an opinion in another case, United States v. Estrada, 430 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 2005), Judge Sotomayor also found an
exception to the exclusionary rule in the Fifth Amendment context. As in Santa and Falso in the Fourth Amendment
context, she applied a Supreme Court precedent with facts similar to those in Estrada, holding that because the
defendant had stated that he had a gun in his pocket, the “public safety” exception to the Fifth Amendment
exclusionary rule, which typically applies to exclude evidence collected as a result of questioning that was not preceded
by Miranda warnings, was applicable.
204 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
205 426 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2005).
Congressional Research Service
31
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Unlike in Martin, Judge Sotomayor wrote, there was no solid evidence that Falso had even
accessed the site, much less that he had actually downloaded pornographic images. Thus, the
court held that the warrant was invalid and the search constituted a Fourth Amendment violation.
The second part of the opinion held that the evidence found during the search could nonetheless
be used to convict Falso because the officers who obtained the warrant had acted in good faith.
Applying Leon, Judge Sotomayor noted that the officers had not misled the issuing court, nor had
the affidavit supporting the warrant been obviously deficient.
In an earlier case, United States v. Santa,206 a police officer from Spring Valley, New York,
arrested Anthony Santa, a man whom the officer recognized as having “been the subject of
previous criminal investigations.”207 The officer made the arrest after learning from a dispatcher
that an outstanding arrest warrant from a neighboring town applied to Santa. In a search of
Santa’s person subsequent to the arrest, the officer found plastic bags filled with crack cocaine.
However, the arrest warrant upon which the officer had relied was supposed to have been
vacated; the issuing court had mistakenly misdirected its request to vacate to the wrong police
department. Thus, when he made the arrest, the officer had neither a valid arrest warrant nor
probable cause to suspect that Santa had committed a crime. In such circumstances, the Fourth
Amendment violation is apparent; the remaining question is whether the exclusionary rule should
bar the prosecution’s use of the evidence. Writing for the court in Santa, Judge Sotomayor held
that under Evans, the exclusionary rule could not bar the evidence seized.
Commentators have drawn analogies between Judge Sotomayor’s rationale in Santa and a 2009
Supreme Court case, United States v. Herring,208 in which the Supreme Court’s five more
conservative justices joined to narrow the exclusionary rule. However, the analogies are arguably
misplaced. Although Herring involved factual circumstances that are remarkably similar to those
in Santa in many respects, a key distinction – namely that the record error in Herring was
committed by police officers themselves rather than by a court employee – distinguishes the two
cases. In other words, whereas the holding in Santa represents an application of the good-faith
exception as interpreted in Evans, Herring was an extension of that exception. To support the
court’s holding in Santa, Judge Sotomayor’s opinion emphasizes the distinction between judicial
errors, which were at issue in Evans and Santa, and police errors. This emphasis mirrors points
made by Justice Breyer in his dissenting opinion in Herring. Both Judge Sotomayor and Justice
Breyer’s opinions highlighted the substantive distinction between errors made by judicial branch
personnel and errors made by police, noting three specific distinctions that the Evans court had
emphasized, namely: (1) the exclusionary rule historically aims to deter police, rather than
judicial, misconduct; (2) no evidence suggests that court employees are “inclined to subvert the
Fourth Amendment”; and (3) because judicial officers have no stake in the outcome of particular
criminal investigations, “there [is] ‘no basis for believing that application of the exclusionary rule
... [would] have a significant effect on court employees.’”209
Based on these few cases, it is difficult to determine what approach Judge Sotomayor would take
to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule as a Supreme Court justice. On one hand, she appears
to apply exclusionary rule precedents that are perceived as conservative without attempting to
206 180 F.3d 20, 24 (2d Cir. 1999).
207 Id. at 24.
208 129 S. Ct. 1692 (2009).
209 Santa, 180 F.3d at 26; Herring, Slip op. at 1 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (both quoting Evans, 514 U.S. at 15).
Congressional Research Service
32
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
narrow the precedents. On the other hand, this respect for precedent appears to be in keeping with
her more general respect for stare decisis.
Police Immunity
While serving on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has authored opinions in several police
immunity cases. A number of these arose in the context of suits for civil damages brought by
plaintiffs who alleged that police officers violated the Fourth Amendment or another
constitutional guarantee and should be liable for civil damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.210
Notwithstanding the cause of action provided by § 1983, police officers are immune from liability
in civil suits if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
of which a reasonable person would have known.”211 The most difficult police immunity cases
turn on an analysis of whether a given constitutional guarantee is “clearly established.”
The Second Circuit held that police officers were entitled to immunity in several cases in which
Judge Sotomayor authored the opinion for a unanimous Second Circuit panel. In Smith v.
Edwards,212 John Smith brought a § 1983 claim for false arrest after he was arrested in connection
with allegations that he had sexually abused his three-year-old daughter. Although the police
officer had arrested Smith pursuant to a warrant, Smith claimed that the warrant was invalid due
to a “material omission” because in the affidavit to the issuing magistrate, the officer had
included incriminating allegations of sexual abuse but neglected to include relevant proceedings,
including the denial of a protective order, in a lower court. Writing for the court, Judge
Sotomayor applied a Second Circuit precedent under which such an omission is material if
inclusion of the omitted material would have undermined probable cause.213 She examined the
relevant lower court proceedings, which appeared to raise some questions regarding statements
made by Smith’s wife and daughter, but did not come to any ultimate conclusion regarding the
legitimacy of the allegations. Given these facts, Judge Sotomayor concluded that Smith’s § 1983
claim must fail because “nothing in the [omitted] proceedings would have negated probable
cause.”214
In another case evaluating probable cause in light of a § 1983 claim, Anthony v. City of New
York,215 police responded to a 911 call in which a caller, identified by the 911 operator as being
potentially emotionally disturbed, had stated that her husband beat her and had a knife and a gun.
The manner in which the officers gained entry is unclear, but once inside the home, they found
Myra Anthony, a woman with Downs syndrome, home alone. The officers transported Anthony to
a county hospital, where she stayed overnight and was subject to psychological evaluations. After
the incident, Anthony and her guardian, Magdalene Wright, sued the officers under § 1983,
claiming damages arising from Fourth Amendment violations. Writing for the court, Judge
Sotomayor first noted Second Circuit and other circuits’ precedent under which “[a] warrantless
210 Under § 1983, state and local employees may be held civilly liable for depriving a person of “any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”
211 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
212 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999).
213 Id. at 105 (citing Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir. 1992)).
214 Id. at 106.
215 339 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2003).
Congressional Research Service
33
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
seizure for the purpose of involuntary hospitalization ‘may be made only upon probable case, that
is, only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person seized’ is dangerous to
herself or to others.”216 Applying that standard to the facts in the case, the court held that the
officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the emotional 911 call prompting the
officers’ entry appeared to provide reasonable grounds to believe that Anthony was dangerous.
In Rolon v. Henneman, the court considered whether a police officer who testified in a
discretionary hearing has absolute immunity from civil suit for actions related to the testimony.217
The plaintiff argued that the officer’s testimony had caused humiliation and economic loss.
Writing for the court, Judge Sotomayor noted that the alleged injuries did not constitute a
cognizable deprivation of liberty or property. Although the opinion focused on fact-specific
circumstances (for example, the court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that he had
lost overtime work as a result of the testimony), the holding extends a Supreme Court case,
Briscoe v. LaHue,218 in which the Court had held that officers are entitled to absolute immunity
for actions arising from mandatory testimony.
In a few other cases, Judge Sotomayor authored opinions in which the Second Circuit denied
immunity for at least some actions. In Walczyk v. Rio,219 Thomas Walczyk and several of his
family members sued the members of the police department in their Connecticut town, claiming
civil damages arising from the police officers’ alleged Fourth Amendment violations in
connection with the search of Walczyk’s home, his mother’s home and Walczyk’s arrest. The
Second Circuit held that the police were entitled to immunity for damages arising from the search
of Walcyzk’s home and for his arrest, both of which it found to be supported by probable cause
and therefore not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. However, it held that the police were not
entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the search of Walczyk’s mother’s home because the
police had based the search on “stale information.”220 In a concurring opinion, Judge Sotomayor
agreed with the outcome, but disagreed with some elements of the court’s reasoning. Namely, in
analyzing the immunity question, the majority opinion had first analyzed whether the Fourth
Amendment right at issue was “clearly established” and next examined whether a “reasonable
officer” would be aware of the right. Judge Sotomayor expressed concern that this two-step
approach had “bifurcate[d] the ‘clearly established’ inquiry” in contravention of settled Supreme
Court precedent.221 Her concerns appeared to be aimed at adhering to precedent and at not
complicating the test for future qualified immunity cases. In addition, she urged the court to resist
widening the established limits of qualified immunity, emphasizing that the court’s approach
might give police officers “a second bite at the immunity the apple.”222
Judge Sotomayor’s police immunity opinion that is least favorable to police officers is Papineau
v. Parmley, a case involving a break up of a protest demonstration by members of the Onondaga
Nation.223 The demonstration was prompted by an agreement between New York State and the
216 Id. at 137 (quoting Glass v. Mayas, 984 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1993)).
217 517 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2008).
218 460 U.S. 325 (1983).
219 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007).
220 Id. at 144.
221 Id. at 167.
222 Id. at 169.
223 465 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2006). In addition to the Fourth Amendment issues discussed here, plaintiffs in Papineau also
claimed damages for violations of their First Amendment rights. See supra note 5 and accompanying text.
Congressional Research Service
34
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Onondaga Nation to impose a state tax on some tobacco purchases made on the Onondaga
reservation. The demonstration proceeded with the knowledge of county police and without
incident for several days, but state police officers became involved when some protesters entered
an interstate highway. Although the protesters left the highway peacefully at the request of one of
the demonstration leaders, state police marched toward the place where the protesters had
gathered, about 70 feet from the highway. The officers then received a “go ahead” order from a
police major who was located out of view of the protesters. The state police then “charged into
the demonstration and began arresting protesters allegedly indiscriminately, assaulting
[protesters], beating them with their riot batons, dragging them by their hair and kicking them.”224
The demonstrators brought a § 1983 claim, alleging violations of their First and Fourth
Amendment rights. Regarding the Fourth Amendment claim, Judge Sotomayor’s opinion noted
that as delineated in a Supreme Court case, Grahm v. Connor,225 police force is excessive if it is
unreasonable given all of the circumstances. Given the circumstances in this case, including the
peaceful nature of many demonstrators, the court concluded that, as a matter of law, the police
officers would not be entitled to qualified immunity.
Sixth Amendment and Habeas Corpus
During her tenure on the appellate bench, Judge Sotomayor has authored opinions in several
cases involving writs of habeas corpus. Her habeas opinions involve various aspects of Sixth
Amendment law such as jury selection, the right to counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Few of these decisions have garnered a dissent. As in other areas, Judge Sotomayor has relied on
Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent in opinions addressing habeas and the Sixth
Amendment. In addition, the opinions demonstrate a recognition of the Sixth Amendment’s
import and a willingness to provide defendants with a right to appeal.
Many habeas cases require federal courts to evaluate decisions made by state courts. However,
under the “deference” provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA),226 federal courts may not overturn state judgments by granting a habeas writ merely
because they would have decided the case differently from the state court. They may overturn
only state decisions contrary to Supreme Court precedent or applied unreasonably.227 Within the
broad zone in which reasonable judges may differ, state court decisions typically stand. In
applying these general habeas parameters, the Second Circuit has deferred to state court decisions
in some, but not all, instances.228
224 Id. at 53.
225 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
226 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
227 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); See also, Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-406 (2000) (stating that a state court’s
decision is “contrary to” clearly established law if it “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our
cases” or if it “confronts a set of facts that are materially distinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless
arrives at a result different from our precedent”).
228 It is worth noting that no capital case from Vermont, Connecticut or New York has reached the Second Circuit
during normal review. Thus, Judge Sotomayor’s opinions have involved non-capital habeas cases.
Congressional Research Service
35
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Jury Selection
In a 2001 case, Galarza v. Keane,229 the principal issue involved application of the Supreme Court
precedent in Batson v. Kentucky230 regarding peremptory challenges to potential jurors during the
jury selection process. In Galarza, the prosecutors peremptorily struck a number of Hispanic
jurors, leading the defendant’s counsel to raise a Batson challenge. As required by Batson, the
trial judge required the prosecution to articulate a non-racial basis for the strikes. The defense
counsel objected to the explanations as pretextual. While the judge specifically declared that he
credited the prosecution’s explanations with respect to some of the prospective jurors, the court
made no clear finding with respect to the others. However, the trial judge permitted all of the
strikes to stand. At that time, the defense counsel did not object to the court’s failure to
specifically declare whether he credited the prosecution’s explanations with respect to some of
the prospective jurors. After the jury found Galarza guilty of numerous narcotic offenses, he
appealed his conviction on equal protection grounds, alleging that the prosecutor exercised her
peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner.
Judge Sotomayor, writing for the majority,231 found that the trial court failed to fulfill its
obligations under Batson as to some of the prospective jurors. Although the majority deferred to
the trial court’s findings regarding two of the prospective jurors, it found the trial court’s record
deficient as to findings regarding three other challenges. In addition, Judge Sotomayor’s opinion
rejected the prosecution’s assertion that by failing to make an appropriate objection, for several
reasons the defendant was procedurally barred from raising his Batson claim in federal court.
First, it concluded that the state court had not relied on the defendant’s failure as a ground for
denying his Batson claim on direct or state habeas review. Second, it applied Second Circuit
precedent under which a procedural failure in a trial is not a bar to federal habeas relief unless the
state courts rely on the failure to deny relief. Third, in a relatively less restrictive reading of
Batson, Judge Sotomayor wrote that “we decline to create a procedural requirement that a party
must repeat his or her Batson challenge three times at trial in order to avoid a procedural bar.”232
For these reasons, the court vacated the district court’s denial of Galarza’s habeas petition and
remanded the case to the district court to address the Batson claims.
Right to Counsel
In Gilchrist v. O’Keefe,233 the Second Circuit rejected an inmate’s claim that he was
unconstitutionally deprived of his right to counsel during his state sentencing proceeding. Shortly
before sentencing, the trial judge declined to appoint a new attorney after previous counsel
withdrew from the case because the defendant had punched him in the ear and ruptured his
eardrum. The defendant appeared without counsel at sentencing and received a sentence of 48 to
144 months. The defendant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that
his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated.
229 252 F.3d 630 (2001).
230 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (holding that prosecutors may not use race as a factor in peremptory challenges).
231 The dissent argued that the defendant’s failure to object rendered the claim meritless under Batson.
232 Galarza, 252 F.3d at 638.
233 260 F.3d 87 (2001).
Congressional Research Service
36
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
In an opinion authored by Judge Sotomayor, despite noting that it would have preferred a
different handling of the situation, the court held that the state court had acted in a manner
consistent with Supreme Court precedent. In reaching its conclusion, the court addressed three
issues. First, it determined whether Supreme Court precedent recognized a distinction between a
waiver (requiring a warning as the defendant alleged) and forfeiture (as the state alleged) of
constitutional rights. Second, it addressed which Supreme Court precedent would govern any
such distinction. Finally, it considered whether the state court’s action was consistent with such
precedent.
Relying on Supreme Court precedent, Judge Sotomayor wrote that “even absent a warning, a
defendant may be found to have forfeited certain trial-related constitutional rights based on
certain types of misconduct.”234 In addition, her opinion concluded that Supreme Court precedent
recognizes a distinction between a waiver and a forfeiture of constitutional rights. However, it
noted that there is no Supreme Court precedent specifically addressing forfeiture of the right to
counsel. In the absence of such precedent, the majority concluded that the state court rulings were
not contrary to clearly established federal law.
In determining whether the state court’s holding constituted an unreasonable application of the
law, the majority looked to other circuits and concluded that sister circuits extended Supreme
Court precedent to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Finding these conclusions
unpersuasive, the court held that the trial court’s ruling was a reasonable application. However, it
noted that its holding was narrow, applying only to the habeas standard and not to the larger
question of the constitutionality of the denial of the right to counsel under these circumstances. In
addition, it noted that in light of the importance of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, trial
courts should exercise other means instead of denying a defendant the right.
In Campusano v. United States,235 a criminal defendant argued that he had suffered per se
ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had failed to file a notice of appeal. The
defendant had twice instructed the attorney to file the appeal and the attorney had neglected to do
so. However, the defendant’s plea agreement contained a provision stipulating that he would not
appeal or otherwise challenge his sentence provided the sentence fell within a stipulated range of
108-135 months, and he had been sentenced to 108 months. The defendant subsequently filed a
habeas claim to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence on the basis of ineffective assistance of
counsel. He argued that the failure to file a requested notice of appeal constituted ineffective
assistance and that no independent showing of prejudice was required.
In an opinion by Judge Sotomayor, the court held that even after a waiver, an attorney who
believes that the requested appeal would be frivolous is bound to comply with the client’s wishes
and file the notice of appeal by submitting an Anders236 brief. Failure to do so, she wrote, satisfies
234 Id. at 97 (referring to Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (holding that a defendant can lose his Sixth Amendment
right to be present at his own trial if, after a trial judge’s warning that he will be removed if he continues his disruptive
behavior, he continues to be disorderly and disruptive); Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17 (1973) (rejecting
petitioner’s claim that his voluntary absence from his trial constitutes a wavier without a demonstration that that the
trial court expressly warned him that the trial would continue in his absence)).
235 442 F.3d 770. (2006).
236 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishing process by which an attorney can conclude that the appeal is
frivolous and ask to withdraw from the case or have the court dispose of the case without the filing of merits briefs).
Anders also requires an attorney to refer “to anything in the records that might arguably support the appeal.” Id. at 744.
Congressional Research Service
37
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
the presumption of prejudice required by a Supreme Court case, Roe v. Flores-Ortega.237 She also
noted that while plea waivers were enforceable in most cases, “important constitutional rights
require some exceptions to the presumptive enforceability of a waiver,”238 and these rights are
endangered when an attorney fails to file a notice of appeal. Thus, the court remanded the case to
the district court for a determination of whether Campusano in fact did instruct his attorney to file
an appeal.
International Issues239
Among circuit court opinions written by Judge Sotomayor having international implications are a
dissent involving the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a
dissent involving federal alienage jurisdiction, and two opinions for the court involving a civil
RICO suit brought by foreign governments claiming that defendant tobacco companies sought to
avoid paying foreign taxes by smuggling cigarettes into plaintiffs’ territory. Whereas Judge
Sotomayor’s dissent regarding the interpretation of the Hague Convention remains a minority rule
in federal courts, her broad approach to alienage jurisdiction where firms of overseas territories
are involved, an approach widely adopted by federal courts, was later approved by the Supreme
Court and also became the rule in the Second Circuit. Her decision that the revenue rule barred
the civil RICO case brought by the European Communities and other governments against
various tobacco manufacturers, a ruling based on Second Circuit precedent that the Supreme
Court had declined to review, was remanded by the Court in light of an intervening ruling that the
revenue rule did not apply to a government prosecution under a different statute. She reinstated
the court’s original decision finding that it was not called into question by the Supreme Court
case, a judgment the Court also let stand.
Together, the dissenting opinions show an inclination on the part of Judge Sotomayor to bring an
international perspective to her analysis, reading the Convention as protecting parental rights
adversely affected by cross-border actions by other parents and looking at the jurisdictional
statute in light of how the majority’s narrow interpretation and its resulting denial of a neutral
judicial forum for disputes with international implications would affect U.S. commercial relations
with other countries. Judge Sotomayer also consulted and analyzed foreign case law in the Hague
Convention case, but viewed this task as instructional rather than necessary to forming her
conclusion. Judge Sotomayor’s opinions on the application of the revenue rule, which in
following Second Circuit precedent continued to make the circuit unavailable as a forum for
foreign government plaintiffs, took foreign policy considerations into account at length. Because
separation of powers concerns were a key factor in why the revenue rule was applied, however,
she found that the conduct of foreign relations was best left to the political branches and refrained
from allowing the litigation to continue in the absence of clear signals from the branches that they
intended such cases to proceed.
237 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (stating that if an attorney unreasonably fails to file a notice of appeal, this failure also gives
rise to a presumption of prejudice).
238 Campusano, 442 F.3d at 774.
239 This section was prepared by Jeanne J. Grimmett, Legislative Attorney.
Congressional Research Service
38
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Hague Child Abduction Convention
Croll v. Croll,240 a case of first impression for the Second Circuit, required the court to interpret
the widely ratified Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The
case involved an issue that remains unsettled under U.S. law and internationally, that is, whether a
parent’s right of access coupled with a ne exeat clause, i.e., a clause in a custody order prohibiting
the custodial parent from removing a child from a certain location, conferred a right of custody,
thus permitting the non-custodial parent to exercise a right of return under the Convention.
Reversing the district court, the Second Circuit ruled 2-1 that “a ne exeat clause does not
transmute access rights into rights of custody under the Convention” and ultimately that the
district court lacked jurisdiction to order the child’s return to Hong Kong, as requested by the
child’s father. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Sotomayor opined that the ne exeat clause granted
joint rights of custody to the father and the Hong Kong court that had issued the original custody
order and would have affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court denied certioriari.
The Hague Convention has as its objects “to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully
removed to or retained in any Contracting State” and “to ensure that rights of custody and of
access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting
States.”241 It distinguishes between “rights of custody” and “rights of access,” defining custody
rights as including “rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right
to determine the child’s place of residence.”242 The Convention contains a remedy of return only
for “wrongful” removal or retention of a child, which will be found where the removal or
retention “is in breach of custody, attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either
jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately
before the removal or retention” and “at the time of removal or retention those rights were
actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or
retention.”243 Since the right of removal is available only for a breach of custodial rights, parents
with a right of access and a ne exeat clause have argued that the clause gives them a right to
determine a child’s place of residence and thus a right of custody for purposes of the Convention.
Croll involved a custody order granted by a Hong Kong court in the context of a divorce
proceeding between parents of a daughter. The order gave the mother sole custody of the child
and the father a right of reasonable access, and included the aforementioned ne exeat clause
directing that the child not be removed from Hong Kong without the leave of the court or the
consent of the other parent. The mother had taken the child to New York City without the
knowledge of the father and, while in New York, filed a court action seeking custody, child
support, and an order of protection. The father then filed a legal action in the Southern District of
New York seeking the child’s return to Hong Kong under the Convention.
To determine what constituted “rights of custody” under the Convention, the majority determined
the ordinary meaning of the term “custody” from various American dictionary definitions and
240 229 F.3d 133, 143 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 949 (2001).
241 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction art. 1, Oct. 25, 1980, at
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.pdf&cid=24. The United States became a party to the Convention
in 1988. The Convention was implemented in the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, P.L. 100-300, 42
U.S.C. § 11601 et seq.
242 Id. art. 5.
243 Id. art. 3.
Congressional Research Service
39
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
found that the term implies a primary duty of care and control involving a variety of parental
duties. It found that the Convention’s use of the plural “rights of custody” implies “a bundle of
rights exercised by one or more persons having custody” and considered this concept to be
inconsistent with holding a single power such as a veto conferred under a ne exeat clause.244 The
court ultimately found that while the clause limited the mother’s power to expatriate her daughter,
it fell short of conferring a joint right to determine the child’s residence. The majority further
found that enforcement of rights under a ne exeat clause would frustrate the Convention’s
purposes because it would require delivery of the child to a parent “whose sole right – to visit or
veto – imposes no duty to give care.”245 The court cited various sources related to the
Convention’s drafting as support for its conclusions and further stated that it was not required to
defer to “a series of conflicting cases from foreign signatories,” finding cases worldwide to be
“few, scattered, conflicting, and sometimes conclusory and unreasoned.”246
In her dissent, Judge Sotomayor argued that the majority had mischaracterized the issue in the
case, which she viewed as whether a ne exeat clause conferred “rights of custody” under the
Convention “wholly independent” of the parent’s access rights.247 In determining the meaning of
“rights of custody”, she criticized the majority’s resort to local definitions of the term “custody”
and instead, citing international rules of treaty interpretation to which the United States has long
subscribed, looked to the Convention, its object and purposes, and official history, which she
found “reflect a notably more expansive concept of custody rights.”248 In her view, the “rights
arising under a ne exeat clause include the ‘right to determine the child’s place of residence’
because the clause provides a parent with decisionmaking authority regarding a child’s
international relocation” and thus the clause “vests both Mr. Croll and the Hong Kong court with
‘rights of custody’ for purposes of the Convention.”249 She found that protecting ne exeat rights
served the broad purposes of the Convention, which included ensuring that Convention parties
respected custody rights under other parties’ laws. She further critcized the majority for failing to
appreciate the “basic international character” of the Convention, which, she noted, makes the
remedy of return available only when cross-border transport of a child takes place and thus
protects the broad choice of the country in which a child is to live, as well as the “more specific”
choices regarding living arrangements that the majority focused on. Unlike the majority, she also
found that the Convention protects custody rights no matter how few a parent possesses. In
addition, though stating that it was “not essential” to her conclusion, Judge Sotomayor noted that
her analysis was consistent with the decisions of most foreign courts that had considered the
issue, examining these cases at some length.250
Being a case of first impression, Croll set precedent for the Second Circuit regarding an important
question under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Judge Sotomayor approached the
Convention with an international perspective, finding it essential to fully explore the Convention
to determine the meaning of a term therein and to consider the “basic international character” of
the agreement in determining its scope.251 Finding that the Convention was concerned with cross-
244 Croll, 229 F.3d at 139.
245 Id. at 140.
246 Id. at 143.
247 Id. at 145 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
248 Id. at 145-46.
249 Id. at 146.
250 Id. at 150-53.
251 Id. at 147.
Congressional Research Service
40
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
border transport, she thus determined that the right to make decisions as to the international
relocation of a child inherent in the ne exeat clause could be the basis for finding a custody right.
She was also attentive to the manner in which the Convention was being implemented in other
jurisdictions and to the reasoning of foreign courts ruling on Convention claims, while indicating
at the outset that the foreign cases with similar outcomes were complementary to, though not
determinative of, her conclusion.
There is currently a split in the circuits as to whether a ne exeat clause or right confers a custody
right and thus a remedy under the Convention, with the Eleventh Circuit, in Furnes v. Reeves,
expressly following the Croll dissent252 and the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Circuits following the
Croll majority.253 The issue also remains unsettled internationally, with most case law in the
courts of Convention parties reportedly in support of the view that a custody right is so
conferred.254 While the Supreme Court denied certiorari in both Croll and Furnes, it has since
decided to address the merits of the issue, having agreed, on June 29, 2009, to review the Fifth
Circuit decision in Abbott v. Abbott. The Justice Department had filed an amicus brief in May
2009, at the invitation of the Court, in which it argued in favor of review in the case. Finding that
Abbott was erroneously decided because it had failed to give effect to the Convention’s broad
definition of custody rights, the Department stated that review was merited since the decision
“deepens the disagreement among the circuit courts … and deviates from the majority of courts in
States parties that have considered the issue.”255
Alienage Jurisdiction
Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda256 involved the scope of alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a), which grants federal courts diversity jurisdiction in cases between “citizens of a State
and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” The Second Circuit had held that alienage jurisdiction
was lacking in a case involving a U.S. plaintiff and defendants that were residents or corporations
of Bermuda on the ground that Bermuda defendants were not “citizens or subjects of a foreign
state.” Judge Sotomayor was one of three judges who strongly dissented from the court’s
subsequent denial of a rehearing en banc, arguing that a rehearing “would provide a much-needed
opportunity to reexamine the flawed and internationally troublesome position that corporations
and individuals from territories of the United Kingdom do not fall within the alienage jurisdiction
of the federal courts.”257 The Supreme Court later rejected the majority’s approach in its reversal
of another Second Circuit ruling.258
The Second Circuit had based its ruling in Koehler on its 2-1 decision in Matimak Trading Co. v.
Khalily, which held that Hong Kong, at the time a British Dependent Territory, was not a “foreign
252 Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702, 719 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 978 (2004).
253 Abbott v. Abbott, 542 F.3d 1081, 1087 (5th Cir. 2008), cert.granted, 77 U.S.L.W. 3708 (U.S. June 29, 2009) (No.
08-645); Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491, 500 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1068 (2004); Gonzales v.
Gutierrez, 311 F.3d 942, 954 (9th Cir. 2002).
254 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Transfrontier Contact Concerning Children: General Principles
and a Guide to Good Practice 43 (2008), at http://hcch.e-vision.nl/upload/guidecontact_e.pdf.
255 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Abbott v. Abbott, 542 F.3d 1081 (2008)(No. 08-645, at
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/2pet/6invit/2008-0645.pet.ami.inv.pdf.
256 209 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 2000) (Koehler I).
257 Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda (Koehler II), 229 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 2000).
258 JP Morgan Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Limited, 536 U.S. 88 (2002).
Congressional Research Service
41
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
state” and thus a corporation established under its law was not a “subject “ or “citizen” thereof.259
Since the United States recognized Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory (the term
subsequently used by the United Kingdom for such jurisdictions), and not as a foreign state, the
court found that Bermuda had the same status as Hong Kong and that under Matimak it was
required to hold that diversity jurisdiction was lacking.260
Arguing for the rehearing, Judge Sotomayor cited a number of factors intended to show the
increasing tenuousness of the majority’s approach: the strong negative reaction to the cases by the
United Kingdom; the State Department’s advocacy of a contrary rule to avoid international
controversy for failure to provide a neutral federal judicial forum for the affected foreign persons;
the fact that the Second Circuit was alone in its rulings; the existence of an earlier Second Circuit
case that had assumed alienage jurisdiction where a Bermuda corporation was involved; and
reservations about Matimak expressed in a footnote later added to Koehler by two of the judges
who ruled in the case.261 After a detailed analysis of the merits of the issue, Judge Sotomayor
concluded that “Matimak misapplied the terms ‘citizens or subjects of a foreign state’ in a fashion
inconsistent with both the historical understanding of these terms and a contemporary
understanding of the relationship between the United Kingdom and its overseas territories.”262
Finding that constitutional and legislative history called for a broad interpretation of the terms
“citizen” and “subject,” Judge Sotomayor found that when the State Department “determines that
a country is not a sovereign state, the more reasonable conclusion is not that its corporations are
‘stateless,’ but rather that they are subject to another sovereign.”263 She concluded that Bermuda
corporations are subject to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, a position that she noted is
consistent with that of the State Department, the Department of Justice, and the Government of
the United Kingdom itself.264
Judge Sotomayor concluded by emphasizing that alienage jurisdiction was established by the U.S.
Constitution and early statutes to strengthen U.S. relations, particularly commercial ones, with
foreign countries and that the importance of these goals had continually increased “as both
international relations and global trade have become more complex and our nation has assumed a
central role in both.”265 Noting the “clear split” in the circuits and “the potential damage to
relations between the United States and the United Kingdom and other nations,” she expressed
hope that the Supreme Court would choose to address the issue “expeditiously.”266 Two years
later, the Supreme Court, overturning a different Second Circuit case, unanimously ruled that
individuals and firms of the British Virgin Islands, also a British Overseas Territory, were citizens
of the United Kingdom.267
Judge Sotomayor vigorously argued that the majority’s statutory interpretation was erroneous in
light of U.S. law and history. In emphasizing that its interpretation would deny a “considerable
number” of foreign entities and individuals – i.e., those nationals and firms of overseas territories
259 Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1091 (1998).
260 Koehler I, 209 F.3d at 139.
261 Id. at 189. For the text of the subsequently added note, see 229 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2000).
262 Id. at 190-93.
263 Id. at 193.
264 Id. at 193.
265 Id.
266 Id. at 193-94.
267 Traffic Stream, 536 U.S. at 100.
Congressional Research Service
42
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
of sovereign states that do business with U.S. persons – the “opportunity to adjudicate their
claims in a federal forum,”268 she also indicated an underlying concern that increased
international controversy would stem from the majority approach. Because Judge Sotomayor’s
legal conclusion at the time had considerable support in other circuits as well as increasing
support in her own, her concern with the negative international ramifications of the majority’s
conclusion, along with her attention to governmental positions in the case, seemingly indicates an
inclination on her part to remove needless obstacles to fruitful political and commercial relations
between the United States and foreign countries.
Common Law Revenue Rule
European Community v. RJR Nabisco269 involved the application of the common law “revenue
rule,” under which courts decline to enforce foreign tax judgments or unadjudicated tax claims, to
a civil RICO suit brought by the European Communities, its member states, and departments of
Colombia against a variety of tobacco companies. An earlier Second Circuit decision, Attorney
General of Canada v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (“Canada”), had held that the rule
applied to a civil RICO suit filed by the Government of Canada against various Canadian and
American tobacco firms.270 Both cases involved allegations that the defendants had participated in
schemes to smuggle contraband cigarettes into the plaintiffs’ territories and thereby committed
RICO violations – e.g., conspiracies to commit mail and wire fraud – that resulted in the
governments’ loss of revenue from tobacco duties and taxes and law enforcement costs.
Writing for the court in European Community, Judge Sotomayor held that Canada was
controlling and that in the absence of mitigating factors the revenue rule applied, barring
plaintiffs’ claims. The Supreme Court later vacated the judgment and remanded the decision for
further consideration in light of the Court’s ruling in Pasquantino v. United States271 that the
revenue rule did not bar a government prosecution of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343
connected to a scheme to smuggle liquor into Canada to avoid heavy import taxes. On remand,
Judge Sotomayor concluded that Pasquantino did not “cast doubt” on the prior Second Circuit
ruling – the court standard that would have permitted a different outcome on remand – and
reinstated the earlier opinion. As it had in Canada, the Supreme Court denied review.
In the court’s initial ruling, Judge Sotomayor explained that Canada articulated two concerns
behind the revenue rule: sovereignty and separation of powers. First, “claims by foreign
sovereigns invoking their tax statutes may embroil the courts in an evaluation of the foreign
nation’s social policies, an inquiry that can be embarrassing to that nation and damaging to the
forum state.”272 Second, “because the conduct of foreign relations is primarily the realm of the
legislative and executive branches, judicial examination and enforcement of foreign tax laws at
the behest of other nations may conflict with the other branches’ foreign policy choices with
respect to cooperation in tax enforcement and create the risk that the judiciary will be ‘drawn into
issues and disputes that are assigned to – and better handled – by the political branches of
268 Id. at 193.
269 355 F.3d 123, 132 (2d Cir. 2004), judgment vacated and remanded, 544 U.S. 1012 (2005).
270 Attorney General of Canada v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., 268 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2001), cert denied, 537
U.S. 1000 (2002).
271 Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 125 S.Ct. 1766 (2005).
272 European Community, 355 F.3d at 131.
Congressional Research Service
43
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
government.’”273 Where these concerns are not present, however, the rule need not be applied.
Under Canada, this would occur if the executive branch expressed its consent to the suit or,
absent such consent, if the plaintiffs “establish that superior law, such as the federal statute that
provides that applicable right of action, abrogates the rule in the context in which the plaintiffs
seek to enforce their tax laws.” 274 Given that abrogation of the long-standing common law
revenue rule in any one case would necessarily have an impact on foreign relations, Judge
Sotomayor found that the task required a showing that Congress had directly spoken to the matter.
She rejected claims that a subsequent amendment to the RICO statute in the USA PATRIOT Act
abrogated the rule – an argument that cited, inter alia, the deletion of an amendment that would
have codified Canada – finding that Congress had not evidenced a clear intent to do so. She also
rejected plaintiffs’ attempts to show the absence of foreign policy concerns, finding, inter alia,
that the fact that the Executive Branch was aware of the suit but did not intervene did not
constitute consent to the action.
In Pasquantino, the Supreme Court had concluded that the case at issue was not intended to
recover a foreign tax liability, like a suit to enforce a judgment,” but instead “a criminal
prosecution brought by the United States in its sovereign capacity to punish domestic criminal
conduct.”275 It further found that the sovereignty and separation of powers concerns underlying
the revenue rule were obviated when a governmental prosecution is involved, and that the
revenue rule thus did not apply to the wire fraud case. In the post-Pasquantino reconsideration,
Judge Sotomayor stated that these sovereignty and separation of powers were critical because of
the exceptions they implied and noted the Supreme Court’s finding that government prosecutions
overcame the potential problems the rule sought to avoid. She found that since the civil RICO suit
was not brought by a foreign government and the executive branch had not expressed its consent
to the action, the factors that led the Supreme Court to hold the revenue rule inapplicable to the
wire fraud prosecutions in Pasquantino were absent in the current case. In citing the lack of U.S.
government intervention, the court noted that in both Canada and Pasquantino the United States
had argued that the revenue rule did not bar criminal prosecutions, but did apply to civil cases
brought by foreign governments involving direct or indirect attempts to enforce their tax laws.
The court dismissed other plaintiff arguments, ultimately stating that since the substance of a
claim was the violation of foreign tax laws and since the political branches had not participated in
the litigation, there was no reason for Pasquantino to disturb the court’s earlier conclusion.
As can be seen, Judge Sotomayor was reluctant to involve the judiciary in the resolution of this
dispute, paying great attention to the role that the political branches could play in a civil suit of
this type and requiring clear evidence that they had before she would allow the litigation to go
forward. Finding such evidence lacking, she barred the RICO suit on the basis of earlier Second
Circuit precedent. She displayed a desire to adhere to this precedent until the Supreme Court had
clearly ruled with respect to the statute at issue in her case. Further, she showed an inclination to
defer to the executive branch in a case with foreign policy implications in two ways: first, by
respecting executive branch silence and second, by indicating that deference would likely be
accorded to its views once expressed. Regarding executive branch views, she noted arguments in
earlier executive branch court briefs that such civil RICO cases were not permitted and insisted
that any intervention by the executive branch be affirmatively expressed.
273 Id. at 132 (quoting Canada, 268 F.3d at 123).
274 European Community, 355 F.3d at 132.
275 Pasquantino, 125 U.S. at 362, 125 S.Ct. at 1776).
Congressional Research Service
44
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Labor Law/Antitrust276
In Clarett v. National Football League,277 the Second Circuit reversed a district court decision
that found the NFL’s three-year eligibility rule in violation of federal antitrust laws. The three-
year rule requires a player to wait at least three full seasons after his high school graduation
before entering the NFL draft. Judge Sotomayor, writing for the court, concluded that the three-
year rule is protected from antitrust scrutiny by the non-statutory labor exemption to the antitrust
laws.278 Unlike the district court, which evaluated the petitioner’s claim in accordance with a test
first adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Judge Sotomayor considered the
claim in light of three Second Circuit decisions involving the non-statutory exemption and the
concerted activities of a professional sports league.279
The Second Circuit maintained that the relationships among sports leagues and their players are
governed by collective bargaining agreements, subject to the carefully structured regime
established by federal labor laws and not the antitrust laws:
[T]o permit antitrust suits against sports leagues on the ground that their concerted action
imposed a restraint upon the labor market would seriously undermine many of the policies
embodied by these labor laws, including the congressional policy favoring collective
bargaining, the bargaining parties’ freedom of contract, and the widespread use of multi-
employer bargaining units.280
The Second Circuit viewed the three-year rule as a mandatory subject of collective bargaining
and rejected the argument that antitrust law should permit a player to circumvent the bargaining
scheme established by federal labor law. The court noted that as a permissible, mandatory subject
of bargaining, the conditions “under which a prospective player ... will be considered for
employment as an NFL player are for the union representative and the NFL to determine.”281
Environmental Law282
Judge Sotomayor’s name is attached to only a small number of environmental decisions, of which
she actually wrote in two. The most important of these, partly because it was recently reviewed
by the Supreme Court, is Riverkeeper, Inc. v. US EPA.283 Riverkeeper addressed an environmental
problem caused by the voracious appetite of large power plants for water to cool their facilities.
276 This portion of the report was prepared by Jon O. Shimabukuro, Legislative Attorney.
277 369 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2004).
278 The non-statutory exemption to the antitrust laws has been inferred from federal labor statutes to protect the
collective bargaining process, even when a collective bargaining agreement results in certain restraints on competition.
In contrast, the statutory exemption to the antitrust laws is derived from the texts of the Clayton Act and the Norris-
LaGuardia Act, and insulates from antitrust scrutiny certain unilateral conduct of labor groups, such as boycotts and
pickets.
279 See Clarett, 369 F.3d at 133 (“We, however, have never regarded the Eighth Circuit’s test in Mackey as defining the
appropriate limits of the non-statutory exemption.”).
280 Id. at 135.
281 Id. at 141.
282 This portion of the report was prepared by Robert Meltz, Legislative Attorney.
283 475 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2007).
Congressional Research Service
45
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
The daily withdrawal from the nation’s waterways by such facilities amounts to billions of
gallons, destroying in the process a huge number of aquatic organisms. Responding to the
problem, Congress, in Clean Water Act (CWA) section 316(b), required that cooling water intake
structures reflect the “best technology available” (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental
impact.284 EPA issued the challenged rule implementing section 316(b) – governing BTA at large,
existing power plants (“Phase II” Rule) – in 2004.
The most significant argument against EPA’s Phase II Rule addressed by Riverkeeper was that
EPA had impermissibly construed section 316(b) to allow determination of BTA based on cost-
benefit analysis. Judge Sotomayor, writing for the unanimous Second Circuit panel, agreed. First,
she noted that CWA sections cross-referenced in section 316(b) demonstrate that after 1989, cost
is a lesser, more ancillary consideration in determining what technology EPA must require under
those sections. This shift, she wrote, signaled Congress’ intent in the CWA to move away from
cost-benefit analysis. Second, Judge Sotomayor stated that the language of section 316(b)
“plainly indicates that facilities must adopt the best technology available” (emphasis by the
court), so that cost-benefit analysis cannot be justified.285
Judge Sotomayor did not altogether preclude considerations of cost in setting BTA. Rather, she
said (drawing on an earlier Second Circuit decision on BTA rules for new power plants), costs
may be considered to a limited extent, in two ways – to determine what technology can be
reasonably borne by the industry, and to evaluate cost-effectiveness. That is, EPA must first
determine the most effective technology that may reasonably be borne by the industry in
question, then, using that technology as a benchmark, EPA may consider other factors, including
cost-effectiveness, to choose a less expensive technology that achieves the same result. Because
the administrative record for the rulemaking was unclear as to the basis for the technologies
selected by EPA as BTA, and thus may have included the impermissible basis of cost-benefit
analysis, the court remanded the Phase II Rule to EPA for clarification and possible reassessment
of BTA.
Of the 13 arguments advanced by the parties before the Second Circuit, Supreme Court review
was sought on only one – the above cost-benefit issue. On this issue, Judge Sotomayor was
reversed 6-3.286 Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia found that EPA had permissibly relied on
cost-benefit analysis in setting BTA and in providing for cost-benefit variances from that standard
as part of the Phase II regulations. He deemed it “eminently reasonable to conclude that §
1326(b)’s silence is meant to convey nothing more than a refusal to tie the agency’s hands as to
whether cost-benefit analysis should be used ….”287 The significance of this decision stems from
the ubiquity of the debate over the role of cost-benefit analysis in environmental statutes. Industry
favors such analysis; environmentalists, arguing that environmental factors are often undervalued
in cost-benefit analyses, oppose its use. The analysis adopted by the Entergy majority may
dispose courts to find federal agency authority to use cost-benefit analysis whenever the statute is
not explicit one way or the other.
An important climate change case argued before a Second Circuit panel presided over by Judge
Sotomayor may also figure in the nomination process. The reason: oral argument occurred three
284 33 U.S.C. § 1326(b).
285 Riverkeeper, 475 F.3d at 98.
286 Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1498 (2009).
287 Id. at 1508.
Congressional Research Service
46
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
years ago (June 7, 2006), but a decision has yet to be rendered. On the other hand, the Second
Circuit is reportedly slow compared to other circuits in rendering opinions, reportedly ranking
11th out of the 13 circuits. The lead clerk of the circuit has been quoted recently as saying that the
Second Circuit has seen a “crushing number of immigration filings” over the last decade.288
The case involves an attempt to use the common law to reduce the CO2 emissions that contribute
to climate change. In 2004, eight states (CA, CT, IA, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WI), New York City, and
environmental groups sued five electric utility companies chosen as allegedly the five largest CO2
emitters in the United States. Invoking the federal and state common law of public nuisance,
plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring defendants to abate their CO2 contribution to the nuisance
of climate change. A similar suit filed the same day in the same court added a private nuisance
claim. In 2005, the district court dismissed the cases on political question grounds,289 and the case
was argued to the Second Circuit in 2006, as mentioned.
This case involves the conscripting of an ancient common law theory to deal with a modern,
complex, and global problem and poses tough questions for the court as to causation and remedy.
The Southern District of New York and two other district courts have chosen to avoid the merits
of common law claims based on greenhouse gas emissions by calling the matter a political
question, unsuitable for resolution by the courts.290 Nonetheless, the current prominence of the
climate change issue in Congress may direct that body’s attention to this case.
Securities Law291
Judge Sotomayor has written opinions in several cases involving securities law. Five of these
cases are discussed below. Four of the five cases discussed, as do most cases involving federal
securities laws, concern allegations of violations of the general antifraud provision of the
Securities Exchange Act,292 referred to as section 10(b), and the rule issued by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement the statute, referred to as Rule 10b-5.293 Because the
issues concerning section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in these four cases were very different, they are
discussed separately. The fifth case concerned the fair fund provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act.294 All of the five opinions appear to focus primarily upon the analysis of statutes and cases
and display a methodical approach to statutory interpretation. As a group, Judge Sotomayor’s
opinions in the securities context appear to favor neither corporations nor investors.
288 Darren Samuelsohn, “Mystery” Climate Case Might Become Issue in Sotomayor Confirmation, Greenwire, June 1,
2009, http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/06/01/archive/1?terms=sotomayor.
289 Connecticut v. American Electric Power, 406 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
290 California v. GMC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68547 (N.D.Cal. 2007); Colo. ex rel. Suthers v. Gonzales, 558 F. Supp.
2d 1158 (Dist.Colo. 2007); Conn. v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 406 F.Supp.2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
291 This portion of the report was prepared by Michael V. Seitzinger, Legislative Attorney.
292 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b).
293 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
294 15 U.S.C. § 7246(a).
Congressional Research Service
47
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
Preemption by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
SLUSA was enacted in response to the perceived failure of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA)295 to curb alleged abuses of securities fraud litigation. PSLRA set
out a framework for bringing securities fraud cases in federal courts. In many instances, plaintiffs
circumvented PSLRA by bringing cases in state courts on the basis of common law fraud or other
non-federal claims. By requiring securities fraud cases to be brought only in federal court and
only under a uniform standard, SLUSA attempted to make certain that plaintiffs could not avoid
the PSLRA requirements. Specifically, SLUSA required suits to be brought in federal rather than
state court if: (1) the lawsuit is a covered class action; (2) the claim is based upon state statutory
or common law; (3) the claim concerns a covered security; (4) the plaintiff alleges a
misrepresentation or omission of a material fact; and (5) the misrepresentation or omission is
made in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security.
Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.296 involved two separate appeals brought by
former and current Merrill Lynch brokers (Dabit) and by a Merrill Lynch retail brokerage
customer (IJG Investments), which were consolidated by the Second Circuit. In both cases,
plaintiffs alleged that Merrill Lynch had issued biased research and investment recommendations
in order to obtain investment banking business. The district court had dismissed the plaintiffs’
earlier claims as preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
(SLUSA).297 The issue on appeal was whether Congress had intended SLUSA to preempt such
actions brought in state courts.
Judge Sotomayor wrote the opinion for the Second Circuit. The court first examined the language
of section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. It found that the “in connection with” requirement of SLUSA
should be interpreted in the same way that courts have interpreted the phrase in the Securities
Exchange Act’s general antifraud provision and in the SEC’s implementing Rule. In its analysis
of past cases which have interpreted this statute and Rule, the court stated that the fraud at issue
must be “integral to the purchase and sale of the securities in question.”298 Further, the opinion
relied on a Supreme Court case, Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores,299 in which the Court
had held that a private litigant may bring an antifraud action only if he is an actual purchaser or
seller of the securities in question.
Judge Sotomayor’s opinion also considered judicial interpretations of the “in connection with”
requirement and the standing of a private litigant in the context of the antifraud provision in order
to determine whether standing under SLUSA would be comparable and whether SLUSA could be
found to preempt all claims that might be brought under state law. The court found that in
enacting SLUSA Congress sought only to ensure that class actions which satisfy the actual
purchaser-seller requirement are subject to the federal securities laws. Thus, the court held that,
because the Dabit plaintiff was a holder and not a buyer or seller of the securities, the suit was not
preempted by SLUSA.
295 P.L. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737.
296 395 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2005).
297 15 U.S.C. §§ 77p, 78bb(f).
298 Dabit, 395 F.3d at 37.
299 421 U.S. 723 (1975).
Congressional Research Service
48
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
In April 2005, four months after the Second Circuit’s decision in Dabit, the Seventh Circuit
adopted an approach opposite to the Second Circuit’s. The Seventh Circuit held in Kircher v.
Putnam Funds Trust300 that “SLUSA is as broad as § 10(b) itself and that limitations on private
rights of action to enforce § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not open the door to litigation about
securities transactions under state law.”301 The Seventh Circuit opinion states that “it would be
more than a little strange if the Supreme Court’s decision to block private litigation by non-
traders became the opening by which that very litigation could be pursued under state law, despite
the judgment of Congress (reflected in SLUSA) that securities class actions must proceed under
federal securities law or not at all.”302
In September 2005, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, presumably to resolve the split
between the Second and Seventh circuit approaches.303 The Supreme Court unanimously304
vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit, rejecting the Second Circuit’s holding (i.e., that the
operative language of “in connection with” must be read narrowly to preempt only those actions
in which the purchaser-seller requirement of Blue Chip Stamps is met).305
To support its holding, the Court discussed the legislative history, concluding that Congress must
have been aware of the broad construction of the phrase “in connection with the purchase or sale”
adopted by both the Court and the Securities and Exchange Commission when Congress used this
key phrase in SLUSA:
And when “judicial interpretations have settled the meaning of an existing statutory
provision, repetition of the same language in a new statute indicates, as a general matter, the
intent to incorporate its ... judicial interpretations as well.”306
To buttress its holding that Congress intended a broad interpretation of “in connection with the
purchase or sale,” the Court stated:
The presumption that Congress envisioned a broad construction follows not only from
ordinary principles of statutory construction but also from the particular concerns that
culminated in SLUSA’s enactment. A narrow reading of the statute would undercut the
effectiveness of the 1995 Reform Act and thus run contrary to SLUSA’s stated purpose, viz.,
“to prevent certain State private securities class action lawsuits alleging fraud from being
used to frustrate the objectives of the 1995 Act.307
Finally, in response to the argument that the holder class action brought by respondent was
distinguishable from a typical class action because it was not brought by a required purchaser or
seller of the securities, the Court stated that the identity of the plaintiffs does not determine
whether the compliant alleges fraud “in connection with the purchase or sale” of securities:
300 403 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2005).
301 Id. at 484.
302 Id.
303 No. 04-1371.
304 Justice Alito took no part in the consideration of the case.
305 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006).
306 Id. at 85.
307 Id. at 86.
Congressional Research Service
49
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
The misconduct of which respondent complains here—fraudulent manipulation of stock
prices—unquestionably qualifies as fraud “in connection with the purchase or sale” of
securities as the phrase is defined.... 308
Deference to SEC
In Press v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., 309 plaintiffs, who are former and current clients of the defendant
broker-dealers, brought suit because the broker-dealers allegedly made automatic sweeps of the
clients’ uninvested funds into money market funds which were poor performers. Plaintiffs alleged
violations of section 10(b) Rule 10b-5, and Rule 10b-10.310
Writing for the court, Judge Sotomayor discussed the SEC’s finding that the general disclosures
made by the fund prospectuses were sufficient and stated that it is bound by the SEC’s
interpretations of its regulations unless they are “plainly erroneous or inconsistent.... ”311 In the
instant case, according to the court, the interpretation was not clearly erroneous or inconsistent.
The Second Circuit went on to find that any omissions which may have occurred were not
material.
Insider Trading: Misappropriation Theory
In United States v. Falcone,312 Joseph Falcone appealed from a conviction of several counts of
securities fraud. A stockbroker acquaintance of the defendant’s had received pre-release copies of
a column in Business Week magazine from an employee of Hudson News, a magazine wholesaler.
The stockbroker used the information to trade securities and passed on the information to the
defendant, who also traded securities based upon the confidential information. The conviction of
the defendant by the lower court turned upon the misappropriation theory of insider trading.
According to this theory, a person violates section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 “when he
misappropriates material nonpublic information in breach of a fiduciary duty or similar
relationship of trust and confidence and uses that information in a securities transaction. In
contrast to [the traditional theory], the misappropriation theory does not require that the buyer or
seller of securities be defrauded.”313 The defendant claimed that the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in United States v. O’Hagan314 vitiated the lower court’s decision that his
securities trading satisfied the “in connection with” the purchase or sale of a security requirement
of section 10(b). The Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Sotomayor, affirmed the lower
court’s conviction.
308 Id. at 89.
309 218 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2000).
310 17 C.F.R. § 10b-10 requires a broker-dealer to disclose to its customers any remuneration which it receives from
third parties in connection with a customer transaction.
311 Press, 218 F.3d at 128 (quoting Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461-63 (1997)).
312 257 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2001).
313 United States v. Chestman, 947 F.2d 551, 566 (2d Cir. 1991).
314 521 U.S. 642 (1997). In very general terms, O’Hagan held that a person may be held liable for violating section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 if he misappropriates nonpublic information which he has obtained from having a fiduciary
relationship with a reporting company and then trades the securities of that company for personal gain.
Congressional Research Service
50
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
The Second Circuit held that Falcone misappropriated material nonpublic information as the
misappropriation theory requirements were laid out in O’Hagan. According to the court, the
Supreme Court’s not laying out all of the parameters of the misappropriation of inside
information did not absolve Falcone from his actions. After O’Hagan, for example, the Second
Circuit had applied the misappropriation theory to schemes involving nontrading tippers and had
not discussed the “in connection with” requirement.315 In Falcone, according to the Second
Circuit, the government had to prove only that the tipper owed a duty to the owner of the
misappropriated information and that the defendant/tippee knew that the tipper had breached his
duty.316 The court found that sufficient evidence was introduced at trial from which a reasonable
jury could deduce that the government had proved its case.
Standing
In In re NYSE Specialists,317 lead plaintiff investors appealed from the lower court’s judgment
granting the New York Stock Exchange’s (NYSE) motion to dismiss claims that it had failed to
regulate fairly and their claim under Rule 10b-5 that the NYSE had made misrepresentations
about the integrity of the market. Lead plaintiffs argued that the lower court erred in its finding
that the NYSE is entitled to absolute immunity and in its finding that the plaintiffs lacked
standing under Rule 10b-5 to bring suit against the NYSE for misrepresentations about its
integrity and internal operations.
In an opinion by Judge Sotomayor, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment as to
the NYSE’s absolute immunity for its alleged regulatory failures but vacated the ruling that
plaintiffs lacked standing under Rule 10b-5. As for the NYSE’s absolute immunity, the court
stated that the Securities and Exchange Commission has “formidable oversight power to
supervise, investigate, and discipline the NYSE for any possible wrongdoing or regulatory
missteps.”318 However, the court vacated the lower court’s decision concerning plaintiffs’ lack of
standing to sue under Rule 10b-5, stating that the lower court’s determination that a plaintiff’s
cause of action under Rule 10b-5 for false statements about a purchased security lies only against
the issuer of the security was incorrect.
Sarbanes-Oxley
In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of World-Com, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange
Commission,319 various unsecured creditors of WorldCom appealed a lower court order approving
a plan by the SEC for the distribution of money to victims of the WorldCom securities fraud. The
distribution of the funds was based upon the fair funds provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,320
which permits the amount of any civil penalty for disgorgement obtained by the SEC against a
person violating the securities laws to be added to the fund for the benefit of the victims of the
315 See, e.g., United States v. Mc Dermott, 245 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2001).
316 United States v. Libera, 989 F.2d 596, 600 (2d Cir. 1993).
317 503 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007).
318 Id. at 101.
319 467 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2006).
320 15 U.S.C. § 7246(a).
Congressional Research Service
51
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
violation. The Committee argued that the distribution plan wrongfully excluded certain categories
of creditors and that the lower court did not apply the correct standard of review.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower court decision. Writing for the court, Judge Sotomayor
held that, because the lower court had only to determine that the SEC’s distribution plan “fairly
and reasonably distributed the limited Fair Fund proceeds among the potential claimants,”321 she
was satisfied that the lower court had not abused its discretion in its findings.
Taxation322
Judge Sotomayor has not written extensively in the area of taxation, and it is not possible to draw
conclusions about her judicial philosophy from the tax cases in which she has been involved. One
Second Circuit case in which she authored an opinion has received attention, primarily because
the Supreme Court, while agreeing with the holding, expressly disagreed with her reasoning. In
that case, William L. Rudkin Testamentary Trust v. Comm’r,323 the issue was whether investment-
advice fees incurred by a trust were “costs which are paid or incurred in connection with the
administration of the … trust and which would not have been incurred if the property were not
held in such trust ….”324 If so, the fees were fully deductible; if not, they were only partially
deductible as miscellaneous itemized deductions. At the time the Second Circuit heard the case, a
split had developed among the other circuits. The Sixth Circuit had held the fees were fully
deductible,325 while the Fourth and Federal Circuits reached the opposite conclusion after finding
the provision only applied to expenses that were not customarily incurred by individuals.326
Writing for the court, Judge Sotomayor agreed with the holding of the Fourth and Federal
Circuits, but used a different analysis. Looking at the statute’s plain meaning, she found it only
applied to those expenses that could be incurred by an individual. This was an objective inquiry
and did not require a subjective determination of whether an individual would have incurred such
expenses. The court disagreed with the interpretation by the Fourth and Federal Circuits because
it found “nothing in the statute [to] indicate[] that Congress intended the [provision] to give rise
to factual disputes about whether an individual asset owner is insufficiently financially savvy or
the assets sufficiently large such that he or she unquestionably would have sought investment
advice.”327
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, affirmed the
Second Circuit’s holding, but rejected its reasoning.328 According to the Court, an analysis
focusing on whether such fees could have been incurred by an individual “flies in the face of the
statutory language” since “the fact that an individual could not do something is one reason he
321 Official Committee, 467 F.3d at 85.
322 This portion of the report was prepared by Erika K. Lunder, Legislative Attorney.
323 467 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2006).
324 26 U.S.C. § 67(e).
325 O’Neill v. Comm’r, 994 F.2d 302 (6th Cir. 1993).
326 Mellon Bank, N.A. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scott v. United States, 328 F.3d 132 (4th Cir.
2003).
327 Rudkin, 467 F.3d at 155.
328 Knight v. Comm’r, 128 S. Ct. 782 (2008).
Congressional Research Service
52
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
would not, but not the only possible reason.”329 Congress would have used “could” had it wanted
and “[t]he fact that it did not adopt this readily available and apparent alternative strongly
supports rejecting the Court of Appeals’ reading.”330 The Court also concluded that the Second
Circuit’s interpretation made part of the statute superfluous. Instead, the Court adopted the
analysis of the other circuits, finding the common meaning of the term “would” required a
determination as to whether the fees would customarily be incurred if the property was held by an
individual. Finding that it was not uncommon for an individual to seek investment advice, the
Court held the fees were not fully deductible.
Thus, while both the Second Circuit and Supreme Court held the fees were partially deductible,
the Court expressly disavowed Judge Sotomayor’s reasoning and adopted an interpretation that
she had explicitly rejected. The case is interesting because both the Second Circuit and Supreme
Court performed a straight-forward statutory interpretation analysis, looking only at the plain
language of the statute,331 yet came to different conclusions about what the term “would” meant
in the context of the statute. Judge Sotomayor, in writing for the Second Circuit, developed an
interpretation—one apparently not pursued by either party before the court or adopted by the
other appellate courts—that seemed intended to avoid complexity in the tax statute. The
government, in fact, subsequently adopted her analysis before the Supreme Court, characterizing
it as the preferred interpretation “because it makes the statute significantly easier to
administer.”332 On the other hand, while her intent was perhaps laudatory, it could be criticized,
and was by the Supreme Court, for being inconsistent with the common meanings of the terms in
the statute.
Government Contractors and Bivens Actions333
Judge Sotomayor wrote the opinion in Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation,334 a Second
Circuit decision that would have allowed “Bivens actions” against government contractors but
was reversed 5-4 by the Supreme Court.335 Bivens actions take their name from a 1971 case in
which the Supreme Court recognized a cause of action for damages against federal officials for
violations of individuals’ Fourth Amendments rights.336 Later courts expanded Bivens to allow
329 Id.
330 Id.
331 As Judge Sotomayor explained in Rudkin, when interpreting a statute, courts “‘start … with the language of the
statute,’” giving the terms “‘their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning, absent an indication Congress intended
them to bear some different import.’” Rudkin, 467 F.3d at 151-52 (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431
(2000)). “‘[The court’s] inquiry must cease if the statutory interpretation is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is
coherent and consistent.”’ Id. at 152 (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997)). Otherwise, the
court may look at the statute’s legislative history for guidance. See id. Here, neither court examined the provision’s
legislative history.
332 Brief of Appellee-Respondent at 17, Knight v. Comm’r, 128 S. Ct. 782 (2008) (No. 06-1286).
333 This portion of the report was prepared by Kate M. Manuel, Legislative Attorney.
334 Malesko v. Correctional Servs. Corp., 229 F.3d 374 (2000), rev’d, Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S.
61 (2001).
335 In the Supreme Court’s decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, in which Justices O’Connor,
Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer joined. Several of the Justices in the majority are no longer on the court, but their replacements might not depart
from their views on this issue.
336 See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971).
Congressional Research Service
53
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
claims against federal officials for failure to provide due process under the Fifth Amendment and
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.337 The plaintiff in Malesko
alleged that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by a contractor of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, whose employee required him to climb the stairs despite a known heart condition. While
climbing the stairs, he suffered a heart attack, fell, and was injured.
Key to the Second Circuit’s decision was its finding that the Supreme Court’s decision in FDIC v.
Meyer, which held that individuals may not bring Bivens actions against federal agencies, was not
dispositive because “private entities acting on behalf of the federal government are not the
equivalent of federal agencies.”338 The opinion specifically noted differences between federal
agencies and government contractors regarding the deterrent effects and fiscal implications of
Bivens actions.339 It further noted the improbability of the Supreme Court implicitly overruling
numerous pre-Meyer cases allowing Bivens claims against government contractors and the
similarities between Bivens actions and actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows suits
against contractors of state governments for constitutional violations.340
Judge Sotomayor’s opinion might suggest that her approach to the purpose and expansion of
Bivens actions differs from that of the majority in the 2001 Supreme Court Malesko case. Judge
Sotomayor’s Malesko opinion characterizes providing a remedy for constitutional violations as a
“more important goal of Bivens liability” than deterring wrongdoing by individuals.341 The
Supreme Court, in contrast, emphasized the deterrence goals of Bivens.342 In addition, her opinion
in Malesko would have expanded Bivens by allowing plaintiffs to bring actions for damages
against government contractors based on their employees’ violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights. In contrast, the Supreme Court “refused to extend Bivens liability to any new context or
new category of defendants.”343
The Supreme Court has not extended Bivens since 1980, and some commentators have read its
decisions as signaling a desire to abolish Bivens actions.344 However, such a characterization
might overstate the significance of Malesko and, particularly, one sentence in it, given that four
other Circuits allowed Bivens actions against contractors prior to Malesko345 and the Malesko
337 See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (Eighth Amendment); Davis. v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (Fifth
Amendment).
338 Malesko, 229 F.3d at 380 (discussing FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994)).
339 The opinion suggested that suits against contractors have a greater effect in deterring individual wrongdoing than
suits against federal agencies because “employer[s] facing exposure to such liability would be motivated to prevent
unlawful acts by ... employees.” It also suggested that even if contractors passed on the costs of Bivens liability to
federal agencies, their doing so would not have the same direct effect on federal fiscal policy that subjecting federal
agencies to Bivens claims would have.
340 Id. at 381 (discussing Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-37 (1982), which allowed a claim under
Section 1983 against a contractor of a state agency).
341 Id. at 380 (“Although deterring wrongdoing by individuals is an important goal of Bivens liability, we find an
extension of such liability to be warranted even absent a substantial deterrent effect in order to accomplish the more
important Bivens goal of providing a remedy for constitutional violations”).
342 Malesko, 534 U.S. at 70 (“The purpose of Bivens is to deter individual[s] ... from committing constitutional
violations.”).
343 Id. at 68.
344 See, e.g., Jeffrey M. Nye, Holly v. Scott: Constitutional Liability of Private Correctional Employees and the Future
of Bivens Jurisprudence, 75 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1245, 1248 (2007).
345 229 F.3d at 381.
Congressional Research Service
54
Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions
opinion largely focuses on issues other than the relative importance of the “goals” of Bivens
liability.
Author Contact Information
Anna C. Henning, Coordinator
Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
ahenning@crs.loc.gov, 7-4067
kmanuel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4477
Kenneth R. Thomas, Coordinator
Robert Meltz
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
kthomas@crs.loc.gov, 7-5006
rmeltz@crs.loc.gov, 7-7891
Cynthia Brougher
Kathleen Ann Ruane
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
cbrougher@crs.loc.gov, 7-9121
kruane@crs.loc.gov, 7-9135
Vivian S. Chu
Michael V. Seitzinger
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
vchu@crs.loc.gov, 7-4576
mseitzinger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7895
Jody Feder
Jon O. Shimabukuro
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
jfeder@crs.loc.gov, 7-8088
jshimabukuro@crs.loc.gov, 7-7990
Michael John Garcia
Alison M. Smith
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
mgarcia@crs.loc.gov, 7-3873
amsmith@crs.loc.gov, 7-6054
Jeanne J. Grimmett
Gina Stevens
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
jgrimmett@crs.loc.gov, 7-5046
gstevens@crs.loc.gov, 7-2581
Nancy Lee Jones
Carol J. Toland
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
njones@crs.loc.gov, 7-6976
ctoland@crs.loc.gov, 7-4659
Erika K. Lunder
L. Paige Whitaker
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
elunder@crs.loc.gov, 7-4538
lwhitaker@crs.loc.gov, 7-5477
Congressional Research Service
55