Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 732 F.3d 157

In 2010 Sharon Dorsett (administratrix of Jo’Anna Bird’s estate) sued Nassau County under § 1983 for inadequate police protection after Bird’s 2009 murder; attorney Frederick Brewington represented her.
In July 2011 Brewington negotiated a settlement with the County that required approval by the Nassau County Legislature to become final; the legislature did not approve it until January 2012.
Brewington engaged in high-profile political activity in 2011 opposing legislative redistricting and filed a related federal lawsuit; plaintiffs allege the County (through Presiding Officer Peter Schmitt) delayed legislative approval in retaliation for those activities.
Plaintiffs claim the delay reduced the settlement’s value by $8 million and sued to compel a legislative vote and recover damages for retaliation; the district court dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
On expedited appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding plaintiffs lacked a legally cognizable injury because they had no right to a timely (or any) legislative vote or approval of the settlement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs allege a First Amendment retaliation injury giving standing	Delay in legislative approval caused concrete monetary loss ($8M) from interest-rate changes	Legislature had absolute discretion over its agenda; plaintiffs had no right to a vote or approval	Held for defendant: no concrete injury because no entitlement to timely or any approval
Whether plaintiffs’ speech was chilled (First Amendment element)	Delay was retaliatory and chilled associates’ rights	Plaintiffs continued political activity; no chilling occurred	Held: no chilling; Brewington remained active and Dorsett’s association continued
Pleading standard on 12(b)(6) for retaliation claim	Allegations of motive and monetary loss suffice to survive dismissal	Failure to plead a cognizable injury warrants dismissal	Held: dismissal affirmed—failure to show legally cognizable injury despite pleaded facts
Whether alternative non-speech harms can confer standing	Monetary loss from settlement diminution gives standing	Even concrete losses fail if plaintiffs had no legal entitlement to the benefit	Held: non-speech harms can confer standing generally, but not here without a right to approval

Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (First Amendment retaliation elements and discussion of “chilling”)
Gill v. Pidlypchak, 389 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 2004) (clarifies standing tension in First Amendment cases)
Zherka v. Amicone, 634 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 2011) (non-speech harms can supply standing for retaliation claims)
Ruston v. Town Bd. for Town of Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for 12(b)(6) dismissals)