## Facts

- New York City residents challenged NYPD “stop-and-frisk” practices connected to the “Clean Halls” (Trespass Affidavit) program, alleging unlawful stops and trespass enforcement around participating residential buildings.
- The case was assigned to a district judge who had presided over earlier, related stop-and-frisk litigation and later handled extensive proceedings in this and a related case.
- In an earlier hearing in related litigation, the district judge suggested a potential basis for a new lawsuit and indicated that if plaintiffs filed a new case and marked it as related, she would accept its assignment.
- While these cases were pending, the district judge gave media interviews that were publicly reported as expressing skepticism about law enforcement and criticizing perceived judicial deference to government positions.
- After the district court issued remedial orders (including supervisory relief), the City appealed and sought a stay pending appeal.
- The court of appeals granted a stay and, on its own motion, ordered reassignment to a different district judge; the published opinion explained that order.

## Issues

1. Whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), the district judge’s actions and public statements created an appearance that her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, requiring reassignment.
2. Whether the remedial orders should be stayed pending appeal in light of the appearance-of-impartiality concerns and the posture of the appeal.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held that the appearance of impartiality had been compromised under § 455(a).
- The court stayed implementation of the district court’s remedial orders pending appeal.
- The court ordered that the case (and a closely related stop-and-frisk case) be reassigned on remand to a different district judge selected randomly.
- The court did not decide the merits of the underlying Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and did not vacate the liability or remedial rulings; it limited relief to a stay and reassignment.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge must step aside when the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned,” applying an objective standard focused on public confidence in the judiciary.
- The relevant question is whether a fully informed, objective observer would harbor significant doubt that the proceeding will be fair; a finding of actual bias is not required.
- An appellate court may use its supervisory authority to reassign a case when necessary to protect the appearance of justice.
- In evaluating appearance-of-partiality concerns, courts may consider the totality of circumstances, including conduct suggesting case steering and extra-judicial public commentary closely tied to pending matters.
- A stay pending appeal may be warranted to prevent implementation of contested remedial measures while appellate review proceeds, particularly where the integrity of the adjudicative process is at issue.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit stayed remedial orders and reassigned the case because an objective observer could reasonably question the district judge’s impartiality based on prior comments suggesting facilitation of related-case assignment and later media statements during the pendency of the litigation, leaving the constitutional merits for later appellate review.


Ligon ex rel. J.G. v. City of New York, 736 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2013)