City lawyers will ask a Manhattan appeals court to throw out the ruling against the NYPD’s use of stop-and-frisk in the wake of last week’s stunning removal of the judge in the case.
If the move succeeds before the end of the year, it would amount to an end-run around Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio’s pledge to drop the city’s pending appeal of Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin’s decision.
A spokesperson for the city Law Department said Thursday that a motion to “immediately vacate” Scheindlin’s ruling would be filed “by early next week” with the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Oct. 31, three Circuit Court judges unanimously booted Scheindlin from presiding over two stop-and-frisk cases, saying she “ran afoul” of judicial-ethics rules by advising lawyers to steer one case to her and by giving media interviews in the midst of the nonjury trial over which she was presiding.
Scheindlin ruled stop-and-frisk illegally targeted minorities, and ordered sweeping reforms, including appointment of an outside monitor to rein in the controversial crime-fighting tactic.
A spokeswoman for de Blasio, who is in Puerto Rico through the weekend, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Lawyer Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which spearheaded the plaintiffs’ case, said of the city’s plan, “I cannot dignify it with a response.”
Earlier Thursday, four police unions filed legal papers to take over the appeal of Scheindlin’s ruling if and when the incoming de Blasio administration drops it. Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Pat Lynch said the move was needed “to ensure that our members have a voice in this critically important proceeding.”
“The outcome of this appeal will directly affect the reputation of all New York City police officers,” he added.
In their filing, the unions say Scheindlin’s decision was “fundamentally unsound” and “if left undisturbed, would unfairly taint the integrity of the 35,000 members of the New York City Police Department and would rewrite the rules governing how they conduct themselves on a day-to-day basis.”
“Plainly, there is a likelihood that the city, under the new mayor, will not adequately represent the [unions’] interests,” court papers say.
New York Civil Liberties Union lawyer Christopher Dunn, who won an earlier, related stop-and-frisk ruling from Scheindlin, called the unions’ move “a transparent attempt to block the incoming administration’s commitment to reform stop-and-frisk.”
“Much as the unions may want to keep alive an appeal that the new mayor has made clear he will withdraw, they are not parties to this litigation and they have no right to hijack the mayor’s agenda,” Dunn said.
Charney said that the unions had no legal right to get involved in the appeal because Scheindlin’s ruling “did not hold any police union or union member liable for anything” and “does not require the union or its members to do anything.”
“The fact that the unions may not like the political stance of the incoming mayor . . . does not give them standing to pursue this appeal,” he added.
On Wednesday, five prominent lawyers from around the country — led by NYU law professor Burt Neuborne — filed papers seeking to reverse Scheindlin’s removal from the stop-and-frisk cases. That filing said Scheindlin’s disqualification “raises troubling issues,” in part because the appeals judges acted despite the fact that none of the “powerful litigants” involved sought her removal.
The lawyers also noted that Scheindlin never got a chance to defend herself before the appeals judges and “was completely blindsided” by their ruling.