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

Law enforcement identified an individual using the eMule peer-to-peer file-sharing platform who was sharing files with hash values matching those of known child pornography. The account was traced to the defendant, who had a prior record of offenses involving minors. Despite being unable to directly download the flagged files from the defendant’s account, agents matched the hash values and observed filenames indicative of child pornography. The officers obtained a search warrant, searched the defendant’s residence, and seized numerous electronic devices. Forensic analysis uncovered tens of thousands of images and hundreds of videos containing child pornography.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona reviewed several pretrial motions. The defendant moved to suppress evidence, arguing the search warrant lacked probable cause since agents had not visually confirmed the files’ content and that the review of his publicly shared files violated his Fourth Amendment rights and the Wiretap Act. The defendant also moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming prejudice from forensic analysis conducted without counsel present, and argued selective prosecution due to his status as a registered sex offender. Following hearings, the district court denied all motions. After a jury convicted the defendant on all counts, the court also denied his Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms and supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction. The court held that hash value matches, even without visual confirmation, provided probable cause to support the search warrant, especially when reinforced by descriptive filenames and the defendant’s criminal history. The court found no Fourth Amendment or Wiretap Act violations because the files had been made publicly available. It ruled there was no right to counsel during the non-critical stage of forensic analysis and found no evidence supporting selective prosecution. The court declined to review the sufficiency of the evidence claim due to lack of argumentation. View "USA V. JOHNSEN" on Justia Law

Several researchers at the University of California received multi-year federal grants from agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In April 2025, these agencies terminated the research grants by issuing form letters, citing shifts in agency priorities and referencing multiple Executive Orders issued by the President, some of which explicitly aimed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and related initiatives from the federal government. The affected researchers alleged these terminations resulted in lost funding, harm to their reputations, and disruption to their projects, with no ready alternative sources of support.The researchers filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting constitutional and statutory claims, including violations of the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court provisionally certified two classes: one consisting of researchers whose grants were terminated by form letter without grant-specific explanation (the Form Termination Class), and another whose grants were terminated specifically due to the DEI Executive Orders (the DEI Termination Class). The district court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the reinstatement of the grants for both classes. The government appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs had established Article III standing. It reversed the preliminary injunction for the Form Termination Class, concluding that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction over their APA claim because the claim was essentially contractual and thus barred by the Tucker Act. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction for the DEI Termination Class, finding that the class was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim because the grant terminations were based on viewpoint discrimination. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "THAKUR V. TRUMP" on Justia Law

The defendant, a person of Mexican descent, worked at a tax preparation business serving Spanish-speaking clients in Boise, Idaho. He was indicted on seven counts of preparing and presenting false and fraudulent tax returns. During jury deliberations, it became undisputed that one juror made racially biased comments about Mexicans. This juror, identified as Juror 5, participated in nearly all deliberations and expressed views suggesting animus toward Mexicans, including remarks about how Mexicans "hate Americans" and allegations connecting the defendant's employer to criminal activity.After the biased statements were reported, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho conducted a special voir dire with all jurors to determine the impact of the comments. Several jurors confirmed hearing the remarks, but most denied being influenced by them. The district court excused Juror 5 for good cause but allowed the remaining eleven jurors to continue deliberations without instructing them to start anew. Thirteen minutes later, the jury returned a partial verdict. The defendant moved for a mistrial and later for a new trial, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated. The district court denied both motions, applying the standard from United States v. Sarkisian, which asks whether exposure to prejudicial comments tainted the verdict.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the proper standard is from United States v. Remmer, which presumes prejudice when juror bias is discovered before a verdict is accepted, and places a heavy burden on the government to prove harmlessness. The court found that the government failed to rebut this presumption, and therefore reversed the district court’s denial of the motion for a new trial and remanded for a new trial. View "USA V. SANCHEZ" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Honduras entered the United States without admission or parole and was taken into custody. Shortly after her release, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served her with a Notice to Appear, written in English, which informed her of the obligation to notify the immigration court of any change of address. She provided an address in Hanford, California, which was used for subsequent correspondence. After moving to a new address without notifying the immigration court, she missed a scheduled removal hearing, and was ordered removed in absentia.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her motion to reopen the removal proceedings, finding that she had received proper notice by mail to her last known address. Her subsequent motion to reconsider was also denied; the IJ found she had constructive notice because the Notice to Appear was sent to her last provided address, and that she had been properly informed of her obligation to update her address. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ’s decisions, concluding that jurisdiction was not impacted by the allegedly defective Notice to Appear, and that mailing the Notice of Hearing to her last provided address was sufficient under the applicable statutory and Supreme Court precedent.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that DHS is not constitutionally required to provide a translation of the entirety of a Notice to Appear—including the obligation to update an address—in an alien’s native language. The court found that English-language notices are generally sufficient to satisfy due process because they are reasonably calculated to inform recipients of their obligations. The petition for review was denied. View "URQUIA-YANEZ V. BLANCHE" on Justia Law

The case concerns a police shooting in Seattle involving an officer and an individual named Shaun Fuhr. Fuhr threatened the mother of his infant daughter, fired a handgun in a public park, and then fled on foot with the child. Despite police commands to stop and a search involving a helicopter and SWAT officers, Fuhr continued to evade authorities for over thirty minutes while still holding his daughter. Eventually, SWAT officers, including Noah Zech, encountered Fuhr in a residential alley. As Fuhr appeared from behind bushes, advancing with the infant in his arms, Zech fired a single shot, killing Fuhr. The baby was unharmed, and Fuhr’s gun was later found nearby.Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of Zech and the City of Seattle. The district court held that Zech was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissed the plaintiffs’ other claims, including negligence, wrongful death, and claims under state law. The plaintiffs appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, Zech did not violate clearly established law by shooting Fuhr under these circumstances. The court found no precedent clearly establishing a Fourth Amendment violation in a case involving a fleeing, possibly armed suspect holding a child after firing a gun and ignoring police commands. Accordingly, Zech was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. View "FUHR V. CITY OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

Three defendants, including the petitioner, were convicted in California state court for the robbery, kidnapping, and murder of a victim who was forced into a car trunk and subsequently killed. The petitioner, who was 18 at the time, confessed to police after being advised of his Miranda rights. At trial, the judge made several offhand, jocular, and at times insensitive comments, including remarks touching on race, gender, and capital punishment. The petitioner did not testify and raised claims at various points about judicial bias and misconduct, an involuntary confession, invalid Miranda waiver, and the improper admission of codefendants’ statements.After conviction and a death sentence, the petitioner’s direct appeal and two state habeas petitions were denied by the California Supreme Court, which rejected his claims both on the merits and on procedural grounds. The petitioner then filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which denied relief. The district court also denied a request to expand the certificate of appealability to include claims regarding his confession and the admission of codefendants’ statements.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. The court held that the petitioner’s claims of judicial bias and misconduct failed because the trial judge’s comments, while inappropriate, did not demonstrate actual bias or render the trial fundamentally unfair under the Due Process Clause. The Ninth Circuit also declined to expand the certificate of appealability, finding that the petitioner’s claims regarding the voluntariness of his confession, the validity of his Miranda waiver, and any Bruton violation were not debatable among reasonable jurists and that any error was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt. The denial of habeas relief was affirmed. View "BURNEY V. BROOMFIELD" on Justia Law

In June 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, protestors established the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP), occupying a sixteen-block area in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood. In response, the Seattle Police Department abandoned its East Precinct and significantly reduced police presence in the affected area, including Cal Anderson Park. The protests and encampments continued to cause disruption, vandalism, and crime for months, with CHOP forcibly disbanded on July 1, 2020, but neighborhood disturbances persisting until December 2020. Two businesses located near Cal Anderson Park, one a restaurant and the other a property owner, claimed that the City’s actions and inaction led to severe economic losses, including lost revenue, property damage, and tenant departures.Previously, these businesses were absent putative class members in the Hunters Capital, LLC v. City of Seattle class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, which raised similar claims. After class certification was denied and the case settled, the businesses filed individual lawsuits in April and June 2023, consolidated in the district court. The district court dismissed the state-created danger and Takings Clause claims, and found their nuisance claims untimely under the applicable two-year statute of limitations, but did not initially decide on equitable tolling pending further guidance from the Washington Supreme Court. After the Campeau v. Yakima HMA, LLC decision, the district court dismissed the nuisance claims and entered final judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the state-created danger and Takings Clause claims, holding that the state-created danger doctrine does not extend to purely economic harm and that the cessation of police services did not constitute a compensable taking. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the nuisance claims, holding that equitable tolling under American Pipe is available under Washington law, and remanded for further proceedings on those claims. View "3PAK LLC V. CITY OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

A Mexican national who entered the United States unlawfully in 1992 married a U.S. citizen, and together they had three children who are U.S. citizens. In seeking to obtain lawful permanent residency, the noncitizen husband traveled to Mexico for a required consular interview. After the interview, the consular officer denied his visa application, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) (“3A2”) and concluding there was reason to believe he was a member of a known criminal organization. The denial notice referenced a review of interview statements, law enforcement information, the immigration record, and all documents submitted. The applicant had no criminal record and disputed gang affiliation, contending that his tattoos were the basis for suspicion.The couple filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting that the visa denial was based solely on the noncitizen’s tattoos, violated their First Amendment rights, and that 3A2 was unconstitutionally vague. The district court dismissed the case, finding the noncitizen could not overcome the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, and that the U.S. citizen spouse had not plausibly alleged the absence of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the visa denial. The court also rejected the vagueness challenge to 3A2.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the noncitizen could not rely on his own First Amendment rights to challenge the visa denial, but the U.S. citizen spouse’s First Amendment right to receive information was implicated, triggering the narrow Mandel exception to consular nonreviewability. Nevertheless, applying the limited review allowed, the court found the government provided a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denial, the applicants did not show bad faith, and the relevant statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "SANCHEZ GONZALEZ V. DEPARTMENT OF STATE" on Justia Law

California enacted the No Vigilantes Act, which requires non-uniformed federal law enforcement officers operating in the state to visibly display identification while performing enforcement duties, with certain exceptions. Officers who fail to comply face potential criminal prosecution under California law. The law also provides a safe harbor: if a law enforcement agency maintains and posts a written policy requiring visible identification, the agency and its personnel are exempt from the identification mandate and associated penalties.The United States filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the constitutionality of the Act’s identification requirement (Section 10) and related provisions, arguing that these provisions violate the Supremacy Clause by attempting to directly regulate federal operations. The district court declined to enjoin enforcement of Section 10 against federal agencies and officers, reasoning that the United States had not shown that the state’s identification requirement interfered with or controlled essential federal law enforcement operations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s refusal to grant preliminary injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit held that Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the federal government in its performance of governmental functions, which the Supremacy Clause forbids. The court explained that states may not directly regulate the conduct of the federal government or its officers, regardless of whether the regulation is minimal or aligns with state requirements for state officers. Concluding that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim, and that the remaining preliminary injunction factors favored the United States, the Ninth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal, enjoining California from enforcing Section 10 against federal agencies and officers. View "USA V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA" on Justia Law

A nonprofit political advocacy organization challenged a set of municipal campaign finance rules adopted by a California city after a history of local government scandals involving city officials and local business interests. The ballot measure, approved by 82% of city voters, imposed per candidate contribution limits for individuals and political action committees, as well as aggregate contribution limits, for city elections. The measure was adopted in response to a series of incidents where city officials accepted valuable gifts or travel from local business figures and subsequently took official actions arguably benefiting those providers. A district attorney’s investigation and report, media coverage, and a resident survey indicating strong public demand for accountability preceded the measure.After the measure took effect, the advocacy organization sued in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, arguing that the per candidate and aggregate contribution limits violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Both sides filed for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the city, holding that the per candidate limits were justified by a sufficiently important governmental interest and closely drawn to that interest, and that the aggregate limits did not impermissibly discriminate against candidates who also supported ballot measures. The court also upheld a related gift ban, but the plaintiffs did not appeal that aspect.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the city established an important governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, and that the contribution limits were closely drawn, not unconstitutionally low, and comparable to other cities’ limits. The court further found that the aggregate limits were constitutional, as they did not apply to ballot measure committees. Thus, the city’s campaign finance limits were upheld. View "MOVING OXNARD FORWARD, INC. V. LOPEZ" on Justia Law