U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The panel affirmed the denial of Mumma’s motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that the indictment adequately alleged the offense and gave notice. It also affirmed the forfeiture judgment because any assumed error in failing to inquire about a jury determination of forfeitability was harmless.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Mumma’s conviction, sentence, and forfeiture order, rejecting his challenge to the indictment and concluding that any error in not asking whether the forfeiture issue should go to the jury was harmless.

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc because the petition did not receive a majority of the non-recused active judges’ votes for rehearing. The denial leaves the panel’s decision in place without the en banc court adopting a substantive rule on preliminary injunctions.

The Ninth Circuit held that the federal special maritime and territorial jurisdiction for relevant Title 18 crimes includes the first three nautical miles from California’s shore, so federal prosecution was authorized.

The court held that AEDPA § 901(a) places the entire twelve-nautical-mile territorial sea, including the first three nautical miles off California, within the United States’ special maritime and territorial jurisdiction for the relevant Title 18 crimes.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of § 10 of California’s No Vigilantes Act against the United States, federal agencies, and federal officers.

The panel reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction barring California from enforcing § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act against the United States, federal agencies, and federal officers, and remanded with instructions to enter that injunction.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Youngblood’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), holding that circuit precedent upholding the statute facially remained binding after the Supreme Court’s later, narrower as-applied decision.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Youngblood’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), rejecting his facial Second Amendment challenge because binding circuit precedent upholding the statute remained applicable after the Supreme Court’s intervening decision.

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged Article III injury by alleging that IEC disclosed sensitive health information entrusted to it under promises of confidentiality.

The Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service’s appeal remained live and reversed the district court’s summary judgment that the Hanna Flats Project violated the Access Amendments.

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged an injury in fact for Article III standing because the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive health information entrusted to the defendant is analogous to the historically actionable harms of breach of confidence and breach of contract.

The Ninth Circuit held that Arizona law permits anyone to seek a court order amending the sex marker on a birth certificate without proof of surgery, and that this statutory route defeats the plaintiffs’ facial equal protection and due process challenges.

The panel held that Arizona law permits anyone, including transgender people who have not undergone surgery, to seek a court order amending the sex marker on a birth certificate.

The panel held that Arizona law permits anyone to seek a court order amending the sex marker on a birth certificate without proof of surgery, and that the statute therefore survives the plaintiffs’ facial equal protection and substantive due process challenges.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed So’s conviction, holding that the § 3292 tolling order covered his conspiracy offense because the order and application described the offense’s essential facts, despite omitting its statutory name.

The panel reversed summary judgment on the section 2 refusal-to-deal claim because plaintiffs presented evidence from which a factfinder could find that Align’s asserted patent-litigation justification neither legitimately promoted competition nor reflected Align’s actual motive.

The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Align on the plaintiffs’ Sherman Act refusal-to-deal claim. It held that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case and presented evidence from which a factfinder could dispute whether Align’s patent-litigation justification legitimately promoted competition or was…

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Schmidt’s claims and denial of his motion for reconsideration. It held that the City and the individually named defendants were immune under the PREP Act because they administered covered countermeasures and Schmidt alleged losses caused by the City’s testing and masking policy.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Schmidt’s claims and denial of reconsideration, concluding that the City and the individual defendants were immune under the PREP Act. The required testing and masks qualified as covered countermeasures, the defendants qualified as covered persons, and Schmidt alleged losses…

The court held that Castillo’s amended federal habeas petitions were untimely and that equitable tolling did not make them timely, but reversed the denial of two claims because the Martinez exception may excuse their procedural default.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of MacDonald’s Free Exercise claim against the individual defendants because, in 2021, no clearly established law gave them fair notice that denying her vaccine exemption in the circumstances alleged violated the Free Exercise Clause.

The court affirmed the denial of most of Castillo’s federal habeas claims, including his challenges to equitable tolling, trial counsel’s failure to present a guilt-phase mental-state defense, and Nevada’s lethal-injection method.

The Ninth Circuit held that the McCarran Amendment waives the United States’ sovereign immunity from this suit to enforce water rights established by the Baker-Lehman Decree. The state adjudication was comprehensive because it was conducted under Nevada’s system for final, stream-wide determinations, even though the…

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all facial and as-applied First Amendment challenges to Arizona’s Voters’ Right to Know Act. It held that the Act’s disclosure scheme survives exacting scrutiny because it advances the State’s informational interest, imposes modest burdens, and is reasonably tailored; it also…

The panel held that the McCarran Amendment waives the United States’ sovereign immunity from this suit because the Baker-Lehman Decree resulted from a comprehensive state water-rights adjudication and the requested relief seeks to administer rights established by that decree.

The panel held that it had appellate jurisdiction because the district court had fully adjudicated the withdrawn adversary proceeding, and it rejected the defendants’ Article III standing challenges to the Trustee’s fiduciary-duty claims and the Unions’ DWA claims.

The court denied Wolverine’s motion to dismiss because the record did not establish that King’s counsel lacked authority to file the notice of appeal. It affirmed the denial of appellate attorneys’ fees because King expressly disclaimed a claim that Wolverine’s earlier appeal was frivolous, thereby waiving the only…

The court denied the appellants’ petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The en banc petition failed to receive a majority vote among the non-recused active judges, and the panel rehearing petitions were also denied.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc because the request for an en banc vote did not receive a majority of the non-recused active judges. The order did not revisit or alter the panel’s disposition of the preliminary-injunction appeals.

The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction over the fully adjudicated adversary proceeding and that the Trustee and Unions had Article III standing for the claims at issue.

The court denied the appellants’ petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The request for en banc consideration did not receive a majority vote of the non-recused active judges, leaving the panel’s affirmance of the denial of preliminary injunctive relief undisturbed.

The court held that the district court’s completed adjudication of the withdrawn adversary proceeding was a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, notwithstanding unresolved core matters in the bankruptcy case, and that the Trustee and Unions had Article III standing for the claims at issue.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc because a majority of the non-recused active judges did not vote for en banc consideration. The denial left in place the panel’s affirmance of the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed Burton’s interlocutory appeal because the denial of his defense under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(1) did not satisfy the collateral order doctrine’s requirement that the order be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.

The court held that the agency did not abuse its discretion in finding that Wei’s DHS appointment notice did not establish exceptional circumstances causing her to miss an earlier immigration hearing.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of prospective-relief claims against the State Defendants because Trees did not show an imminent threat that dues would again be withheld. It also affirmed judgment on the pleadings for SEIU because issue preclusion barred Trees from relitigating the validity of her 2016 agreement…

The court reversed the dismissal of Edwards’s § 1983 claims because Oregon law tolls the limitations period while an inmate completes the prison grievance process required before suit may be filed.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed Burton’s interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Although the district court’s ruling could satisfy the first two collateral-order requirements, the False Claims Act provision at issue is a jurisdictional bar, not an immunity from suit, and its denial can be reviewed after…

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Diemert’s constructive-discharge, disparate-treatment, retaliation, and equal-protection claims, but reversed summary judgment on his Title VII and Washington Law Against Discrimination hostile-work-environment claims.