Civil Division Priorities

• Justice Department Announces Investigation Of New York City Police Department’s Special Victims Division: Pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which prohibits state and local governments from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law, on June 30, 2022, the Office announced a civil investigation into the Special Victims Division (“SVD”) of the New York City Police Department.  The investigation will assess whether the SVD engages in a pattern or practice of gender-biased policing in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.  This is the first federal investigation of a police department based solely on whether its policing practices are gender biased.
• United States Attorney Announces Investigation Of The Mount Vernon Police Department: On December 3, 2021, the Office announced a civil investigation into the Mount Vernon Police Department (“MVPD”), assessing whether MVPD engages in a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing, uses excessive force, and conducts unconstitutional strip and body cavity searches.
• Statement Of U.S. Attorney On Intention To File For Contempt and Seek A Court-Appointed Receiver To Address Conditions On Rikers Island: Since 2015, the Office has been enforcing a consent decree with the City of New York and its Department of Correction to address violations of the constitutional rights of incarcerated individuals at Rikers Island.  In light of the City’s lack of progress in implementing changes, on July 17, 2023, the Office announced that it will seek a court-appointed receiver to address the deteriorating conditions at Rikers Island.
• Acting U.S. Attorney Announces Successful Conclusion Of Agreement With Westchester County Jail To remedy Constitutional Violations At The Jail: The Office successfully resolved findings that the Westchester County Jail engaged in a pattern and practice of constitutional violations regarding use of force against inmates, treatment of minors, and provision of health care to the Jail’s more than 1000 inmates.  the Office worked closely with a federal monitor and public officials to bring the Jail into compliance; as a result, use of force incidents plummeted, and the Jail’s medical, mental health, and re-entry programs were nationally recognized.

• United States Attorney Implements Groundbreaking Settlement With Meta Platform, Inc., Formerly Known As Facebook, To Address Discrimination In The Delivery Of Housing Ads: On June 22, 2022, the Office filed a complaint and consent decree in United States v. Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook, Inc., the first algorithmic discrimination case brought by the United States under the Fair Housing Act.  For the first time, Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., agreed to change its delivery algorithm to correct for bias.  This settlement affects millions of Facebook users and also marks the first time that Meta will be subject to court oversight for its ad targeting and delivery system.
• United States Settles Fair Housing Act Lawsuit Against Artimus Construction For Failure To Construct Apartments Accessible To Persons With Disabilities: On April 7, 2023, the Office settled a Fair Housing Act lawsuit against Artimus Construction for failure to construct apartments accessible to individuals with disabilities.  Under the settlement, Artimus agreed to make retrofits at rental buildings in Harlem and Chelsea and establish a fund to compensate aggrieved persons.  This is the 18th settlement reached by the Office with developers and architects to remedy inaccessible housing in this District, including settlements to resolve suits against The Durst Organization, Glenwood Management, Silverstein Properties, Related Companies, and Atlantic Development. 
• Acting U.S. Attorney Announces Consent Decree Resolving Claims That Owner Of Manhattan Condominium Discriminated Against Tenant On The Basis Of Disability: The Office routinely initiates lawsuits on behalf of individuals with disabilities who have been denied housing because they seek to live with assistance animals.  The Office has been uniformly successful in these matters, which result in the landlords providing compensation to the resident, changing their reasonable accommodation policies, and permitting the resident to live with an assistance animal. 

• U.S. Attorney Announces Agreement With New York University To Increase Accessibility Of Student Housing Facilities: The Civil Rights Unit works to make sure that colleges and universities are accessible for individuals with disabilities.  For example, in November 2022, the Office reached an agreement with New York University to increase the accessibility of NYU’s student housing facilities.  The agreement covers all of NYU’s student housing facilities in the New York metropolitan area for a total of more than 4,000 student housing units.  Similarly, the Office reached an agreement with the City University of New York (“CUNY”), requiring CUNY to provide individual relief to a student with a visual impairment who was excluded from full participation in CUNY’s academic courses and to implement systemwide policies to ensure future compliance with the ADA across CUNY’s 25 colleges in the five boroughs of New York City, which collectively serve 243,000 students. 
• U.S. Attorney Files And Simultaneously Settles Lawsuit Against Jujamcyn Theaters LLC To Improve Accessibility At Five Of Broadway’s Most Historic Theaters: The Civil Rights Unit has a long history of ensuring that the most iconic New York City sites are accessible to people with disabilities.  For example, the Office has ensured the accessibility of numerous Broadway theaters, having reached settlement agreements with the major Broadway theater organizations — Jujamcyn Theaters, the Shubert Theaters, and the Nederlander.  The Office also reached settlement agreements with the owners and operators of Yankee Stadium, Radio City Music Hall, the Metropolitan Opera, Madison Square Garden, the Apollo, and the Vessel at Hudson Yards, among many others.  This enforcement work is also pursued to ensure that local restaurants, libraries, movie theatres, and other places of public accommodation are compliant with the ADA.
• District Court Rules That MTA’ Renovation Of Subway Station Triggered MTA’s Obligation Under ADA To Install Elevators Unless Technically Infeasible: The Office obtained a major ruling against the Metropolitan Transit Authority (“MTA”) and New York City Transit Authority to increase the accessibility of the New York City subway system.  The ruling effectively requires MTA to install elevators when conducting certain station renovations, without regard to cost, unless it is technically infeasible to do so.  In the wake of the ruling, MTA has worked to dramatically increase the number of accessible stations throughout the City. 
• The Office has entered into Voluntary Compliance Agreements with a number of summer camps, requiring them to implement policies to accommodate the needs of children with disabilities and train all personnel who may interact with prospective and enrolled campers and camp visitors. 

• U.S. Attorney Resolves Employment Discrimination Suit With The Town/Village OF Harrison, New York, And Its Fire Department: In June 2023, the Office resolved a lawsuit alleging that the Town/Village of Harrison in Westchester County, along with its Fire Department, discriminated against a female firefighter on the basis of sex and retaliated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  As part of the settlement, the Town of Harrison admitted that it did not take any disciplinary action against a male firefighter who ultimately pled guilty to harassing the female firefighter.  The settlement also required the Town to implement comprehensive policy changes and provide significant compensation to the victim, resulting in one of the largest payments by a local government in an employment discrimination case brought by the United States on behalf of a single individual. 

• The Office defends the Executive Office of the President, the Cabinet, other government officials, and most federal agencies and departments of the Executive Branch in civil actions challenging the legality of federal policies and programs.  Much of the Civil Division’s work in this area involves high-profile lawsuits, novel issues of constitutional and administrative law, and important issues of public policy.  This category includes cases brought against federal officials in both their individual and official capacity. Litigation can range from single-plaintiff actions to complex nationwide class actions.  AUSAs handling these cases often must coordinate with the involved federal agencies, as well as with senior leadership within the Department of Justice.
• In its Constitutional Law practice, the Civil Division defends actions challenging the constitutionality of federal statutes, regulations, or policies, or the actions of individual federal employees.  For example, the Civil Division recently intervened in People of the State of New York v. Arm or Ally, LLC, 22 Civ. 6124, to defend against a Second Amendment challenge to the Gun Control Act and a recent regulation enacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that makes clear the Act’s requirements apply to ghost guns.  And Civil Division AUSAs are currently representing the United States Military Academy at West Point in a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the use of race as a factor in admissions, as a violation of Equal Protection (see Students for Fair Admissions v. United States Military Academy at West Point, 23 Civ. 8262).    
• Many of these cases involve cutting edge First Amendment issues.  The Civil Division is defending President Biden and senior White House officials in Berenson v. Biden, 23 Civ. 3048, alleging that the administration’s attempts to combat the spread of false information regarding COVID-19 vaccines on social media constituted a violation of the First Amendment.  The Civil Division represented the government in a First Amendment challenge to provisions of the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS Act that required NGOs that received federal funding to adopt a policy against prostitution and sex trafficking (see Alliance for Open Society International v. USAID, 15-974 (2d Cir.)). And in Stagg, PC v. Department of State, 19-811 (2d Cir.), the Civil Division successfully handled a First Amendment challenge to regulations prohibiting the transfer of technical data required for the manufacture of certain munitions to foreign persons.   
• The Civil Division also defends cases challenging government action or inaction under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), many of which involve novel legal issues and consequential public interests.  For example, Civil Division AUSAs recently successfully defended an APA action challenging hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for licensed home care service agencies located in New York. And SDNY AUSAs have defended a number of challenges to the authority of Administrative Law Judges on the grounds that they are inferior officers who were not properly appointed in accordance with Article II of the United States Constitution.

• The Civil Division represents the United States, including its officers and agencies, in employment discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.  The Division also represents the United States in suits for monetary damages alleging negligent or wrongful acts.  And Civil Division AUSAs represents the VA and other federally funded medical providers in lawsuits alleging malpractice.  These matters, which frequently go to trial, often involve complex fact patterns and require engaging with experts on a wide range of topics.

Civil Division AUSAs represent the interests of the United States in bankruptcy cases filed in the Southern District of New York, including bankruptcies of cryptocurrency companies, major pharmaceutical companies (including recently Purdue Pharma and Endo Pharmaceuticals), major domestic and foreign airlines (including American Airlines), car manufacturers (including Chrysler and General Motors), and countless other major companies (including Sears, AIG, and Lehman Brothers).  Examples include:

• In re Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124 (S. Ct):  The Office represents the interests of the United States in the bankruptcy proceeding of Purdue Pharma L.P.  Our representation includes advocating on behalf of the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.  The Office has also opposed efforts to permit an involuntary third-party release of the Sackler family, who are not debtors in the bankruptcy case, arguing, among other things, that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the release of non-debtors from personal liability to other non-debtors. The legality of third-party releases is presently before the Supreme Court.
• In re Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc., No. 23 Civ. 2171:  In the bankruptcy of a cryptocurrency investment company, the bankruptcy court included a so-called “exculpation” clause in the debtors’ plan, which purported to extinguish (among other things) civil and criminal liability for the debtors’ and various third parties’ future acts.  The Office has argued that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit such exculpation and that courts may not involuntarily release the government’s civil, criminal, and administrative claims.

Civil Division AUSAs also handle a variety of complex civil tax cases, including bringing affirmative cases to collect unpaid income and employment taxes and penalties (including FBAR penalties for taxpayers’ failures to report their foreign accounts), litigating tax shelter cases to prevent sophisticated corporate entities from engaging in abusive transactions to shield their income from taxation, and seeking injunctions to put fraudulent tax preparers and tax-shelter promoters out of business.  Examples include:

• New York v. Mnuchin, No. 19-3962 (2d Cir.):  In this case the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland challenged the constitutionality of a provision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that limited the Internal Revenue Code’s state and local tax deduction for individuals to $10,000.  The Office successfully defended the provision in the district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Those courts agreed with our arguments that principles of federalism did not constrain Congress’s ability to limit this deduction and that the provision at issue did not coerce the states to change their own tax systems. 

• AIG v. United States, No. 09 Civ. 1871:  This case involved seven cross-border financial transactions that the United States asserted were abusive tax shelters designed to generate bogus foreign tax credits that AIG improperly attempted to use to reduce its tax liabilities in the United States.  The Office asserted that these transactions lacked any meaningful economic substance, were devoid of any legitimate business purpose, and instead were designed solely to manufacture hundreds of millions of dollars in tax benefits to which AIG was not entitled.    According to the terms of the settlement reached in 2020, AIG agreed that all foreign tax credits that it claimed for the 1997 tax year and all later tax years for these same transactions, totaling more than $400 million, would be disallowed in their entirety.  AIG further agreed to pay a 10% tax penalty. 

• United States v. Alvarez, No. 21 Civ. 1930:  The Office filed a civil complaint alleging that Rafael Alvarez and his tax-preparation business ATAX New York LLC had prepared and filed fraudulent tax returns on behalf of their clients in which they falsely reduced their clients’ tax liabilities and generated tax refunds to which those clients were not entitled.  As part of a settlement in 2021, the defendants admitted that they prepared and filed many federal income tax returns that included claims of expenses, losses, or “head of household” status that lacked adequate supporting information or documentation, and that these unsupported entries caused the clients’ tax liabilities to be substantially understated.  The defendants consented to a permanent injunction that, among other things, prevented them from acting as federal tax return preparers, and they agreed to pay disgorgement.