⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit hears a class-action dispute over traffic enforcement in Buffalo, New York. Drivers allege police used checkpoints for general crime control and concentrated them in Black and Latino neighborhoods. They also allege Black and Latino motorists disproportionately received multiple tinted-window tickets during a single stop. They sued the city and police officials for civil-rights violations and damages. The district court certified two damages classes: one involving checkpoint stops, the other multiple tinted-window tickets. The city defendants now challenge that class certification, not a final damages judgment. Under Rule Twenty-Three, commonality asks whether a shared question can produce an answer for the class; predominance asks whether common issues outweigh individual ones. The defendants will contend that each person's stop, injury and damages require separate proof. The plaintiffs will respond that citywide practices and shared evidence permit collective treatment. You'll also hear Monell: a city is liable under federal civil-rights law for constitutional harm caused by its policy or custom, not automatically for every wrong by an employee.

Hall, et al. v. City of Buffalo (No. 25-2216) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 22, 2026.