Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

An inmate at Airway Heights Corrections Center participated in a prison writing program sponsored by Eastern Washington University, which encouraged submissions to a university literary journal. The inmate wrote a short story containing a brief reference to sexual intimacy and submitted it for consideration. The prison’s Community Partnership Program Coordinator intercepted the submission, deeming it “inappropriate for publication” due to its “sexual content,” and returned it to the inmate. The inmate then mailed the story directly to the university and complained to the prison superintendent, who endorsed the decision to block the submission and warned that further unauthorized correspondence would result in removal from the program.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted summary judgment for the prison officials, concluding that they had not violated the inmate’s First Amendment rights and, even if they had, their actions were protected by qualified immunity. The court applied the deferential standard from Turner v. Safley, which governs regulations of prisoner conduct, and found no retaliation. The court also denied the inmate’s motions for additional discovery and to vacate the judgment.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment, including its qualified immunity determination, and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred by applying the Turner standard instead of the standard from Procunier v. Martinez, which governs outgoing inmate correspondence. The panel determined that genuine disputes of fact existed and, if proven, could show that the prison officials’ refusal to transmit the inmate’s story constituted prohibited censorship under the First Amendment. The court also held that the district court erred in its analysis of the retaliation claim and instructed that it should be evaluated under Rhodes v. Robinson, which sets forth the elements for a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context. View "GRENNING V. KEY" on Justia Law

Google was accused of violating the privacy rights of users in the United States by continuing to track and store their location data even after users had disabled the “Location History” feature on their devices. The lawsuit, brought as a class action on behalf of approximately 247.7 million individuals, consolidated multiple complaints. The parties ultimately negotiated a settlement that included both injunctive relief—requiring Google to alter its practices—and a $62 million fund. This settlement fund was to cover attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, service awards for class representatives, and administrative expenses. The remaining funds were to be distributed to selected nonprofit organizations with a focus on internet privacy, rather than directly to class members.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, after conducting a fairness hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), overruled objections from certain class members. These objectors argued that it was improper to distribute the settlement fund exclusively through the cy pres doctrine without first attempting a direct distribution to class members. The district court found that a direct distribution was infeasible because the pro rata share for each class member would be minimal (less than 25 cents) and administrative costs would further reduce any recovery. It approved the cy pres distribution, finding the selected nonprofit recipients had a substantial nexus to the class’s privacy interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The appellate court held that the district court properly considered the relevant factors under amended Rule 23(e), did not improperly presume the fairness of the settlement, and acted within its discretion in approving a cy pres-only monetary distribution where direct payments were deemed infeasible and not verifiable. The court also found the selection of cy pres recipients appropriate and declined to address new constitutional arguments not presented below. The holding is that cy pres-only distributions are permissible in class settlements when direct distribution is infeasible and the selected recipients have a substantial nexus to the interests of the class. View "PATACSIL V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law

A company specializing in hybrid electric aircraft technology filed suit in Washington state court against a major aerospace manufacturer and its investment affiliate, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and tortious interference, among other state law claims. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant improperly used its confidential information, including by incorporating aspects of the plaintiff’s technology into two patents obtained by the defendant. The plaintiff’s claims involved several theories and more than 30 alleged trade secrets.The aerospace manufacturer responded by counterclaiming for a declaratory judgment that its employees were the sole inventors of one of the patents in question. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington based on this federal patent law counterclaim, and a second inventorship counterclaim was later added regarding another patent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on both patent inventorship counterclaims. The remainder of the plaintiff’s claims proceeded to a jury, which returned a verdict awarding the plaintiff over $92 million for trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference. However, the district court granted the defendant’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and conditionally granted a new trial, vacating the jury award.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s post-trial rulings and remanded the case with instructions for reassignment to a different district judge. In a subsequent petition for rehearing, the defendant argued for the first time that appellate jurisdiction belonged exclusively to the Federal Circuit because the counterclaims were compulsory and arose under patent law. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendant’s counterclaims, though arising under federal patent law, were permissive—not compulsory—because they did not share the same operative facts as the plaintiff’s state law claims; thus, Ninth Circuit jurisdiction was proper. The court also held that the district court appropriately exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, as they shared a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal counterclaims. The petition for rehearing was denied. View "ZUNUM AERO, INC. V. THE BOEING COMPANY" on Justia Law

Several cities, counties, and local agencies across the United States challenged new conditions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) on federal grants they had already been awarded. These new conditions, added after the grants were awarded, required recipients to certify compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws for all their programs (not just those funded by the grants), acknowledge that such certifications are material for purposes of the False Claims Act, refrain from using grant funds to promote “gender ideology,” “elective abortions,” or “illegal immigration,” and verify the immigration status of individual grant recipients.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court found that the new conditions went beyond merely enforcing existing legal requirements and exceeded the agencies' statutory authority. It enjoined the agencies from enforcing all of the challenged conditions, from withholding grant funds based on those conditions, from requiring certifications of compliance, and from refusing to process grant agreements because of the litigation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the agencies’ imposition of these grant conditions was lawful under the relevant statutes. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction in large part. The court held that: (1) the conditions requiring compliance with antidiscrimination laws are unlawful to the extent they apply to programs or activities not receiving federal funds, but are permissible as to federally funded programs; (2) the conditions making compliance certifications “material” for False Claims Act purposes are not authorized by statute; (3) the restrictions on the use of grant funds for promoting certain ideas or activities exceed statutory authority; and (4) the requirement to use a specific immigration verification system is unauthorized. The appellate court remanded with instructions to narrow the injunction to allow antidiscrimination conditions for federally funded programs, but otherwise affirmed the district court’s injunction. View "COUNTY OF KING V. TURNER" on Justia Law

A man was detained in San Francisco after police responded to reports of gunfire near a bar in the Mission District. Officers received gunshot detection alerts and eyewitness reports describing the shooter as a Hispanic male in a blue jacket. Police pursued a suspect matching this description, who fled when ordered to stop and was later found hiding behind a fence near the reported location. Upon his detention, officers discovered a gun, ammunition, and a magazine in his possession. The man was charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him, and also moved to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds. The district court denied both motions. The defendant then proceeded to a stipulated bench trial, did not contest the evidence or cross-examine witnesses, and was found guilty. At sentencing, the court declined to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, reasoning that the defendant’s efforts to preserve his right to appeal, including a motion to suppress and going to trial, precluded such a reduction. The defendant was sentenced to 45 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court correctly found reasonable suspicion existed for the seizure based on the officers’ collective knowledge and the totality of the circumstances, including eyewitness identification and the defendant’s proximity and conduct. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court applied the wrong legal standard by considering the defendant’s constitutionally protected conduct against him when denying a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The error was not harmless because it could have affected the sentence imposed. View "USA V. AGUILERA" on Justia Law

A researcher and military veteran requested two volumes of a report created by the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) from the National Security Agency (NSA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The HAC report, prepared in response to the 1967 attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, examined Department of Defense communications failures. The NSA had received a copy of this report from Congress in 1968. The report bore a prominent banner stating, “NOT FOR RELEASE UNLESS AND UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY COMMITTEE,” and was marked “TOP SECRET.” The NSA had never publicly released the report, though it was cited in a later declassified NSA report about the Liberty incident.The NSA denied the FOIA request, asserting that the report was not an agency record subject to FOIA because it was created by and remained under the control of the U.S. House of Representatives. The requester filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The district court, referencing the D.C. Circuit’s standard for congressional documents, granted summary judgment in favor of the NSA, finding that Congress had manifested a clear intent to control the document, keeping it outside FOIA’s reach. After a voluntary remand for additional disclosures, the district court again granted summary judgment to the NSA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court formally adopted the D.C. Circuit’s test: a document prepared by Congress and provided to an agency is not subject to FOIA if Congress has clearly manifested its intent to retain control. The court held that the HAC report’s prominent restriction banner demonstrated such intent, and thus, the report was not an agency record under FOIA. The judgment in favor of the NSA was affirmed. View "KINNUCAN V. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY" on Justia Law

A veteran special agent with Homeland Security Investigations was convicted after a jury trial of accepting bribes from individuals connected to organized crime. In exchange, he misused a confidential government database to assist these individuals and attempted to fraudulently facilitate the entry of an inadmissible foreign national into the United States through immigration parole. The indictment charged him with conspiracy to commit bribery, accepting a bribe as a public official, money laundering, and filing false tax returns. The criminal conduct involved accessing sensitive information and attempting to manipulate immigration processes for personal gain.Previously, the United States District Court for the Central District of California sentenced him to 121 months in prison, applying a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3) for holding a “high-level decision-making or sensitive position.” On his first appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed his convictions but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing because the district court had relied on guideline commentary without first finding the guideline text ambiguous, as required by United States v. Castillo.Upon remand, the district court found the guideline text ambiguous and again applied the enhancement, referencing the commentary which includes law enforcement officers as holding “sensitive positions.” The court imposed an 85-month sentence after a downward departure. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the guideline's text is ambiguous regarding whether a “sensitive position” must also be “high-level,” and that it is ambiguous as to what constitutes a “sensitive position.” The court held that deference to the guideline commentary was warranted, finding it reasonable to include law enforcement officers as holding “sensitive positions.” The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court’s sentencing explanation was sufficient. The sentence was affirmed. View "USA V. CISNEROS" on Justia Law

Five employees of the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife sought and received religious exemptions from a statewide COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued in August 2021. However, the Department informed these employees that it could not accommodate them in their current positions due to job requirements involving in-person work. Instead, it offered them the opportunity to pursue possible reassignment through a process that historically resulted in successful placements only 14 percent of the time, with no assurances that new positions would preserve pay or resolve the religious conflict. The employees did not complete this process, doubting its efficacy, and were subsequently terminated.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the employees brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), and both federal and state constitutions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department on all claims, finding that the Department’s offer of the reassignment process satisfied its duty to provide a reasonable accommodation under Title VII and WLAD. The court also dismissed certain federal claims on procedural grounds and excluded three expert witnesses, while issuing a protective order limiting discovery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that, as a matter of law, merely offering a limited reassignment process with uncertain prospects does not fulfill an employer’s obligation under Title VII to propose a reasonable accommodation that eliminates the conflict between religious beliefs and job duties. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on most of the Title VII claims and all WLAD claims (except for two employees who failed to meet procedural requirements), but affirmed the dismissal of federal and state constitutional claims, the exclusion of expert testimony, and the issuance of the protective order. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "CHERRY V. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case, the State of California and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, challenged a federal regulation issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The regulation expanded the scope of the Gun Control Act to cover certain partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional firearm frames and receivers, but explicitly stated that some unfinished components—such as those not sold with instructions or tools for completion—were not subject to the Act. California claimed that, as a result of the regulation’s limitations, it was forced to increase financial and training expenditures related to state law enforcement and the regulation of “ghost guns.” Giffords Law Center asserted that its core mission was frustrated by the regulation, requiring it to divert resources to address increased ghost gun proliferation.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs and defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court concluded that both California and the Giffords Law Center had standing to bring suit. On the merits, the district court granted summary judgment for ATF on one count, but for the plaintiffs on another, holding that the regulation was arbitrary and capricious. The district court declared the challenged portion of the regulation unlawful, vacated it, and remanded the matter to ATF.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Focusing on Article III standing, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal connection between the challenged regulatory example and their alleged injuries. The court held that the plaintiffs’ asserted harms were too speculative and not fairly traceable to the regulation. As a result, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice for lack of standing. View "STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES" on Justia Law

A company operating a gas station in Washington entered into a series of agreements with a petroleum refiner and a logistics company. The agreements allowed the company to rebrand its station and market motor fuel under the refiner’s trademarks, even though the refiner did not supply the actual fuel. Instead, the logistics company served as an intermediary, and fuel was sourced from a third party. Later, the refiner and logistics company claimed the agreements were terminated, demanding the removal of the trademarks. The gas station operator refused, alleging that the termination violated the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), which regulates the termination and nonrenewal of petroleum marketing franchises.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the gas station operator’s PMPA claim. The court held that no PMPA franchise existed because the refiner did not supply the fuel to either the operator or the logistics company. The court reasoned that the statute required the refiner to be the supplier of the fuel for a franchise relationship to exist under the PMPA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. It held that the PMPA does not require the refiner to supply the actual fuel; rather, a franchise exists if there is a contract authorizing the use of the refiner’s trademark in connection with the sale of motor fuel. The court determined that the operator plausibly alleged franchise relationships with both the refiner and the logistics company, based on the mutual obligations in the agreements and the statutory definitions. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the PMPA claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "CAN-AM FUEL DISTRIBUTION, LLC V. SINCLAIR OIL, LLC" on Justia Law