SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 19-4022, 19-4022-cv United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Argued: October 2, 2020. Decided: February 22, 2021
Subject
Salman v United States.
Significance
The Supreme Court ruled in Salman v United States on December 6 that inside traders may still be liable for insider trading crimes even when no actual quid pro quo exchange between insiders took place. This ruling rejected an earlier interpretation by the US Court of Appeals in New York, which threatened to make prosecutions for insider trading more difficult. This decision comes as the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump pledges to overhaul the financial regulatory efforts of the Obama administration, a politically fraught proposition.
Impacts
The Trump administration may pursue selective enforcement of financial wrongdoing without accompanying structural reform.
The Democrats will seek to build a narrative of a ‘business-as-usual’ Republican government in response to its deregulation push.
New York state and local officials’ regulatory clout over the financial sector will give them national and international influence.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently upheld United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Judge's denial of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the Appellate Division to conclude, in light of clearly established federal law as expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that a New York statute providing for the recommitment of specific defendants who plead not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect (NRRMDD) under a mere “preponderance of the evidence” standard does not violate either due process or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
