The Next Step in Stop-and-Frisk A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit created a public-policy crisis earlier this month when it stayed the remedies ordered by Judge Shira Scheindlin of Federal District Court to correct civil rights violations associated with the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy. And by wrongly removing Judge Scheindlin from the case, the panel sent a chilling message to district court judges who challenge the practices of the police and other government entities. Instead of letting this matter linger, the full court should agree to review the panel's ruling. Judge Scheindlin ruled in August that the practices used in the stop-and-frisk program violated the constitutional rights of minority citizens. The panel stayed for now the remedies she ordered, including the appointment of an independent monitor, and it took the unusual step of removing her from the case even though no one involved in the five-year litigation had ever questioned her fairness in court or filed a motion seeking to disqualify her. By acting without justification and without giving her the opportunity to defend herself, the appeals panel raised questions about its own motives. The removal order, however, did not go to the substance of Judge Scheindlin's rulings in the case. City Hall, however, has nonetheless asked the appeals court to vacate her decisions. The appeals court has no plausible basis for overturning those rulings, given the evidence before it at this moment. Its first order of business should be to review the panel's ill-advised decision of removing Judge Scheindlin and holding up remedies that would protect the constitutional rights of the city's residents.