The ruling last August by federal judge Shira Scheindlin (B.A. Michigan, '67) enjoining New York City's controversial stop-and-frisk policy produced national attention and widespread praise and criticism. The unusual move yesterday by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the injunction is looking to be equally notorious. From the order order (PDF) removing her from the case:
Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 2 (“A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”); see also Canon 3(C)(1) (“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . . .”), and that the appearance of partiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s “related case rule,” see Transfer of Related Cases, S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y. Local Rule 13(a),1 and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.
WSJ Law Blog found legal ethics experts to be divided on the removal. Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker explains why he finds the removal "preposterous."
