Latest Case: Tardif v. City of New York (Civil Rights)

Some Observations on Calls for Senate Reform: Part One of a Two-Part Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

In this first of a series of columns, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar offers four observations about recent calls for reform of the filibuster device in the U.S. Senate. Dean Amar suggests looking at state experiences with supermajority rules, as well as the Senate’s own recent past, and he considers why senators might be reluctant to eliminate the filibuster. He concludes with a comment on President Joe Biden’s suggestion that the Senate return to the “talking filibuster” and praises a suggestion by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) that the cloture requirement (currently at 60 votes) could be lowered gradually, the longer a measure under consideration is debated.

Read More

Tardif v. City of New York

Docket: 19-1360

Opinion Date: March 18, 2021

Judge: Joseph F. Bianco

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and various officers and officials, after confrontations with the officers during Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in 2012. Plaintiff alleged that the City violated the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) in failing to reasonably accommodate her epilepsy by timely administering medication during her pre-arraignment detention following her arrest, and that Sergeants Giovanni Mattera and Thomas McManus committed assault and battery under New York law when, during separate demonstrations, each officer used force against plaintiff. The Second Circuit concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the ADA claim because there was no evidence demonstrating the City delayed administering medication "by reason of" plaintiff's disability, as required under the statute. In regard to the state law assault and battery claims, the court held that the district court correctly determined, contrary to plaintiff's contention, that a justification instruction was warranted on those claims because New York law permits a police officer, even in a non-arrest situation, to use an objectively reasonable degree of force in the performance of a public duty, including crowd control. However, the court concluded that the district court, in providing that justification charge, erroneously instructed the jury that it could consider an officer's subjective intent, which is contrary to New York's objective reasonableness inquiry. Furthermore, although the error was prejudicial as it relates to the assault and battery claims involving Sergeant Mattera and warrants a new trial, the error was harmless as to the claims against Sergeant McManus given that his subjective good faith was never raised, or even at issue, during the trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings.