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

Petitioners challenged the FWS's Biological Opinion regarding the Ruby Pipeline Project, which involved the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending from Wyoming to Oregon. The court set aside the Opinion as arbitrary and capricious and set aside the Record of Decisions because it relied on the invalid Opinion. The court remanded for the agency to formulate a revised Opinion that: (1) addresses the impacts, if any, of Ruby's groundwater withdrawal on listed fish species and critical habitat; and (2) categorizes and treats the Conservation Action Plan measures as "interrelated actions" or excludes any reliance on their beneficial effects in making a revised jeopardy and adverse modification. View "Center for Biological Diversity. v. BLM, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for assaulting a federal officer. Defendant argued that his conviction should be reversed because the district court's jury instructions failed to inform the jury adequately that the government bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. The court concluded that the jury instructions in this case correctly stated the government's burden of proof on the entire issue of self-defense. The court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Pepper" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated plaintiffs, argued that a series of automated telephone calls placed to his home by Best Buy violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, and the Washington Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device Act (WADAD), Wash. Rev. Code 80.36.400. The court concluded that these calls were aimed at encouraging listeners to engage in future commercial transactions with Best Buy to purchase its goods. They constituted unsolicited advertisements, telephone solicitations, and telemarketing, and were prohibited by the TCPA, the WADAD, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code 80.36.400(3). View "Chesbro v. Best Buy Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's decision to modify the protective order issued in his federal habeas proceeding to permit respondent to turn over materials produced during the federal proceeding to the agency that would prosecute his resentencing. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion for modification as to materials that were privileged. The court vacated the portion of the order relating to privileged materials and remanded to the district court for further proceedings to resolve all disputes as to which specific materials were privileged and thus were covered by its protective order. The court held, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the protective order so as to exclude from its coverage non-privileged material, and therefore affirmed that portion of its order. Because the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing, the disqualification of the Arizona Attorney General's Office from representing respondents was not moot. View "Lambright v. Ryan" on Justia Law

RSA appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissal of RSA's claim for copyright infringement, related to pilot escort vehicle manuals, against Evergreen on the ground of laches. The court held that Evergreen did not willfully infringe upon RSA's copyright because it acted under color of title and in good faith. The court also held that the alleged future infringements named as the basis for the injunctive relief were identical to the original infringements and were thus barred by laches as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc." on Justia Law

The district court concluded that the State of Montana's contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated 13-37-216 were unconstitutional under the First Amendment and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing its campaign contribution limits. The State sought a stay of the district court's order, pending appeal. The court concluded that the state was likely to succeed on appeal. The court concluded that the State had made a strong showing that a merits panel of the court would likely conclude that, absent en banc proceedings or an intervening decision of the Supreme Court, the court remained bound by its decision in Mont. Right to Life Ass'n v. Eddleman. The court also concluded that a merits panel was likely to hold that the analytical framework of the Supreme Court's decision in Randall v. Sorrell did not alter the analysis of Buckley v. Valeo or Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC in a way that affected the court's decision in Eddleman. In light of the State's interest in regulating campaign contributions, the lack of evidence that other parties would be substantially injured, and the public's substantial interest in the stability of its electoral system in the final weeks leading to an election, the court will stay the order pending the state's appeal. View "Lair, et al v. Bullock, et al" on Justia Law

These consolidated petitions for review challenged a contract between the BPA and one of its long-time customers, Alcoa. BPA's preference customers and others filed this petition for review, requesting that the court hold that the contract was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the agency's statutory mandate to act in accordance with sound business principles. Petitioners claimed, among other things, that instead of entering into a contract to sell power to Alcoa at the statutorily required Industrial Firm power (IP) rate, BPA should sell to other buyers at the market rate. The court denied the petitions for review insofar as they pertained to the Initial Period. Because the potential for BPA and Alcoa to enter into the Second Period of the contract was no longer before the court, the court dismissed those portions of the petitions. Finally, the court held that because BPA relied on a categorical exclusion to the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, requirements, declining to complete an Environmental Impact Statement was not arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's NEPA claim. View "Alcoa Inc. v. BPA, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Yellow Page Companies, challenged the validity of Seattle's imposition of substantial conditions and costs on the distribution of yellow page phone directories (Ordinance 123427). The district court rejected plaintiffs' challenges and granted summary judgment in favor of the City, allowing the Ordinance to stand. The court concluded that, although portions of the directories were obviously commercial in nature, the books contained more than that, and the court concluded that the directories were entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment. As a result, when the court evaluated the Ordinance under strict scrutiny, the Ordinance did not pass strict scrutiny because it was not the least restrictive means available to further the government's interest. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the City and remanded for the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. View "Dex Media West, Inc., et al v. City of Seattle, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought to install a temporary offsite sign advertising the television program "E! News" without obtaining the required City permits. Deeming the sign "strictly commercial in nature," the City notified plaintiffs that installation of the proposed sign would violate several provisions of its sign ordinance. The district court agreed with the City and granted judgment in its favor. The court held that, in light of plaintiffs' concessions that the E! News sign was an advertisement for a particular product and that it proposed a commercial transaction, the district court properly determined that the signs at issue were commercial speech and correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claims. View "Charles, et al v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

PRA appealed the district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that PRA's debt collection efforts violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue the order; the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a provisional class for purposes of the preliminary injunction; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., et al" on Justia Law