Constitutional Law Attorney in New York City
At The Law Office of Dan Ackman, constitutional law isn’t abstract — it’s about protecting real people from unlawful government action. Dan Ackman represents clients whose constitutional rights have been violated by government agencies, administrative tribunals, and regulatory bodies in New York City and beyond.
When a government agency suspends a license without fair process, seizes property without a warrant, conducts sham hearings, enforces unconstitutional policies, or deprives you of due process, the Constitution provides a remedy. Dan Ackman has secured precedent-setting victories, multi-million dollar settlements, and structural reforms that hold government actors accountable.
What Is Constitutional Law?
Constitutional law defines the boundaries of government power under the United States Constitution and ensures that government actions respect individual rights. Constitutional protections apply in criminal cases, civil litigation, and administrative enforcement proceedings alike. Key constitutional safeguards include:
- Due Process of Law (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)
- Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures (Fourth Amendment)
- Equal Protection Under the Law
- First Amendment Rights
- Access to Fair and Public Proceedings
Government agencies cannot avoid these requirements simply because an action occurs in an administrative tribunal. Whether the matter involves occupational licenses, business operations, professional credentials, or property rights, constitutional protections apply.
Landmark Second Circuit Victory: Arrest-Based TLC Suspensions Declared Unconstitutional
One of Dan Ackman’s most significant constitutional law victories came before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the case of Nnebe v. Daus, the Second Circuit held that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission’s practice of suspending drivers based solely on arrest — and then continuing those suspensions after a hearing — violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
The court concluded that the post-suspension hearings the TLC had historically provided were ineffective and inadequate, amounting to merely procedural window-dressing. This published opinion now stands as binding precedent in the Second Circuit.
For the full docket history and filings in Nnebe and the related consolidated case, see the Nnebe v. Daus & Stallworth v. Joshi case file.
Class Certification for 20,000 Suspended Drivers
Following that constitutional ruling, a federal district court certified a class of approximately 20,000 taxi and for-hire drivers whose licenses were suspended solely due to an arrest. See the published class certification opinion here.
This class certification was an essential step in addressing systemic violations across thousands of drivers rather than requiring individual lawsuits. For more detail on the class action status and certification in this case, visit the firm’s page: Class Action Status Ordered in Nnebe v. Daus.
Operation Refusal: Due Process Violations and Multi-Million Dollar Settlement
Dan Ackman also challenged the TLC’s “Operation Refusal” program, which subjected taxi drivers to enforcement actions without constitutionally required procedural protections. A federal district court held that Operation Refusal deprived drivers of due process, resulting in a multi-million dollar settlement for the affected class.
This case illustrates a fundamental constitutional principle: agencies must provide meaningful notice, a fair hearing, and a genuine opportunity to be heard before depriving someone of liberty or property.
Unconstitutional Summary Suspensions by OATH
The New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) conducts administrative adjudications for many city agencies. Although administrative in nature, OATH proceedings are still subject to constitutional requirements.
In federal court, Dan Ackman obtained a judgment holding that OATH’s summary suspension of a non-lawyer advocate for taxi drivers was unconstitutional because it denied due process of law. The court found that the advocate was never given a fair chance to defend against the suspension. An appellate court later ruled that the attorneys’ fee award in the case was insufficient and needed to be increased.
A key piece of evidence in this case is documented in PX11: Ackman v. Giuliani, which shows procedural deficiencies that violated constitutional norms.
Fourth Amendment Violations: Unlawful Vehicle Seizures
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Vehicles — especially those used to earn a living — are covered by these protections. Dan Ackman secured federal district court decisions holding that the TLC’s practice of seizing vehicles without a warrant or a hearing violated the Fourth Amendment and denied vehicle owners due process.
One published opinion in this area can be accessed here.
These rulings reaffirm that even regulatory enforcement actions must respect constitutional limits on government power.
Revocation-on-Conviction Policies Held Unconstitutional
In another major constitutional challenge, a federal district court struck down portions of the TLC’s revocation-on-conviction policy as unconstitutional. The policy had allowed the agency to revoke licenses automatically after certain convictions without adequate procedural safeguards or individualized assessment.
The court’s ruling led to a multi-million dollar settlement for the affected class and reinforced that constitutional procedures must be followed even when a criminal conviction is involved.
Opening TLC Courts to the Public
Transparency is a cornerstone of constitutional justice. In state court, Dan Ackman secured a decision requiring that TLC courts be opened to the public. Public access strengthens accountability and ensures that constitutional protections are enforced openly, fairly, and consistently.
When government adjudications affect livelihoods, openness is essential to maintain public confidence in the fairness of the process.
Repeal of an Unconstitutional Westchester County Vehicle Seizure Statute
Constitutional advocacy at The Law Office of Dan Ackman extends beyond New York City. Dan successfully challenged a Westchester County statute that permitted the county to seize for-hire vehicles based on an assertion that the vehicle’s base station owed unpaid fines. This law allowed deprivation of property without sufficient procedural protections. The statute was ultimately repealed — a victory for constitutional safeguards at the municipal level.
Federal Constitutional Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Many constitutional violations by government officials are addressed through federal civil rights litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statute permits individuals to sue government actors who, under color of law, violate constitutional rights.
Available forms of relief include:
- Injunctive relief to halt unconstitutional practices
- Declaratory judgments affirming legal rights
- Compensatory damages
- Class-wide remedies
- Attorneys’ fees to promote access to justice
Dan Ackman has pursued § 1983 claims in both federal district courts and appellate courts, resulting in structural reforms and authoritative decisions.
Why Constitutional Protections Matter
Constitutional rights are not abstract legal slogans — they protect real people whose well-being and livelihoods depend on fair government processes. When agencies suspend licenses without due process, conduct sham hearings, seize property without a warrant, revoke privileges without individualized review, or restrict public access to hearings, constitutional safeguards are violated.
Dan Ackman’s constitutional law practice is dedicated to enforcing these safeguards, protecting individuals from overreach, and preserving fundamental rights against government abuse.
Contact a New York Constitutional Law Attorney
If a government agency has violated your constitutional rights — whether through license suspension, revocation, property seizure, unfair hearings, or other unlawful procedures — you may have a constitutional claim. The Law Office of Dan Ackman is committed to protecting due process, defending Fourth Amendment rights, and holding government actors accountable under the Constitution. Contact Dan to learn more today.