The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was unwise to put a stay on the necessary remedies Judge Shira Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan ordered in August in response to the civil rights violations of New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy. And it overreached in taking the extraordinary step of removing Judge Scheindlin from the long-running litigation.

The appeals panel said the judge improperly used the assignment process that led to her presiding over three stop-and-frisk cases. It also said that she created the “appearance of impropriety” by granting a series of press interviews while the case was pending before her. In one of the interviews cited in the appellate court order, Judge Scheindlin reasonably defended herself from what she described as “below-the-belt” attacks by the city, which sought to portray her as unfair to the New York Police Department.

The city, however, did not raise these issues in its motion for a stay of the remedial measures, which include an independent monitor who would oversee reforms of police training, discipline and other matters — while the case was on appeal. The appeals court went out of its way to take up issues that were not before it.

The court did not overturn the August ruling, in which Judge Scheindlin rightly found that the tactics underlying the stop-and-frisk program violated the rights of minority citizens. She castigated city officials for being “deliberately indifferent” to police practices that were racially discriminatory.