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

Three criminal defendants in San Francisco, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, challenged the constitutionality of the San Francisco Sheriff's Office (SFSO) Pre-Trial Electronic Monitoring program (PTEM). They specifically contested Rule 5, which requires enrollees to submit to warrantless searches, and Rule 11, which allows SFSO to share participants’ location data with other law enforcement agencies without a warrant and to retain the data. The plaintiffs were divided into two subclasses: those enrolled in the program before May 2023 ("original rules subclass") and those enrolled after May 2023 ("revised rules subclass").The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Program Rules likely violated their rights under the United States and California constitutions. The court enjoined the enforcement of the challenged Program Rules for both subclasses. The Sheriff appealed the injunction, particularly the prohibition on enforcing the location sharing provision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction over the appeals and that abstention was not warranted. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their facial challenges to Rule 11’s location sharing requirement for the revised rules subclass. The court determined that the Superior Court exercises a core judicial power in imposing PTEM and that the Sheriff’s program does not create separation-of-powers issues. The court also found that the location sharing provision was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution when ordered by the Superior Court following an individualized determination. The court vacated the preliminary injunction as to the revised rules subclass but affirmed it for the original rules subclass due to the lack of a clear record that location sharing was a condition of PTEM enrollment. The court also granted the Sheriff’s motion to stay the district court’s subsequent order enforcing the preliminary injunction. View "SIMON V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO" on Justia Law

A sheriff's deputy in San Bernardino County, California, pursued a suspect who fled from a traffic stop. The suspect, Richard Delacruz, ran towards the backyard of Michael Newman's home. The deputy, Todd Underhill, lost sight of Delacruz but believed he might have entered the house. Underhill and other deputies entered the home without a warrant, found Newman, and eventually located and arrested Delacruz inside the house.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the deputies did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the hot-pursuit exception to the warrant requirement applied. The court found that the deputies had probable cause to believe Delacruz was inside the house and that the pursuit was immediate and continuous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the deputies had probable cause to enter the home, as a reasonable person would believe there was a fair probability that Delacruz was inside. The court also determined that the pursuit was immediate and continuous, despite a nine-minute delay between losing sight of Delacruz and entering the home. The court concluded that the hot-pursuit exception justified the warrantless entry, as the deputies were in immediate and continuous pursuit of a fleeing suspect who had committed a felony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "NEWMAN V. UNDERHILL" on Justia Law

A mother, Aurora Regino, filed a complaint against the Chico Unified School District after the district began using her child's new preferred name and pronouns without informing her. Regino claimed that the district's policy, which allows students to be addressed by their preferred names and pronouns without parental notification, violated her substantive and procedural due process rights. She argued that the policy deprived her of her fundamental rights as a parent to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her children.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed Regino's complaint, reasoning that she failed to allege the existence of a fundamental right that was clearly established in existing precedent. The court applied a standard similar to that used in qualified immunity cases, requiring that the right be clearly established in existing law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal, holding that the district court applied erroneous legal standards to the substantive and procedural due process claims. The Ninth Circuit clarified that a plaintiff asserting a substantive due process claim does not need to show that existing precedent clearly establishes the asserted fundamental right. Instead, the critical inquiry is whether the asserted fundamental right is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to conduct the proper analysis, including a careful formulation of the asserted fundamental right and an examination of whether it is deeply rooted in history and tradition.The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court erred in its analysis of Regino's procedural due process claim by requiring her to identify a fundamental right. Procedural due process protects all liberty interests derived from state law or the Due Process Clause itself. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion. View "REGINO V. STALEY" on Justia Law

Gregory Gliner, a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and the United States, sought to identify the anonymous operator of the PoliticalLore.com website and the pseudonymous author of an allegedly defamatory article published on the website. Gliner intended to use this information for a defamation lawsuit in the United Kingdom. He filed an ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery from Dynadot, Inc., a California-based company that provided domain registration and privacy protection services for the website.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Gliner’s application, citing the First Amendment interests of the website operator and the article author. The court did not make any relevant factual findings and did not address the statutory requirements or the Intel factors for granting discovery under § 1782. Gliner subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the district court also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court abused its discretion. The appellate court held that the First Amendment protections cited by the district court did not apply because there was no evidence that the website operator or the article author were U.S. citizens or present in the United States. Additionally, the court found no indication that the website had a U.S. audience whose First Amendment rights might be implicated. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further consideration of the § 1782 statutory factors and the Intel factors. The district court was instructed to allow Dynadot and any affected parties to contest the subpoenas if issued. View "IN RE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF GLINER" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a nonprofit corporation and its founder, applied for a special use permit to conduct church activities on agricultural land they purchased in Maui. The Maui Planning Commission denied their application, citing concerns about traffic, safety, and environmental impacts. Plaintiffs continued using the land for non-agricultural purposes without permits, leading to fines. They applied again, addressing some concerns, but the Commission denied the second application as well.The plaintiffs sued the County of Maui and the Commission, alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and other constitutional claims. The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment to the County on most claims, except for the RLUIPA equal-terms claim, which went to trial. An advisory jury found for the County, and the district court entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings.On remand, the district court severed an unconstitutional provision from the zoning law and proceeded to trial on the remaining claims. The jury found for the County on all counts. Plaintiffs appealed again, arguing that the substantial-burden inquiry under RLUIPA should have been decided by the court, not the jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the substantial-burden inquiry under RLUIPA is a question of law for the court to decide. Although the district court erred in submitting this question to the jury, the error was deemed harmless because the jury's verdict was consistent with the required legal outcome. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the County of Maui. View "SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE V. COUNTY OF MAUI" on Justia Law

Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr., an Idaho death-row inmate, filed a lawsuit alleging that his execution by lethal injection would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Pizzuto sought discovery about the origin, manufacture, and acquisition dates of Idaho's execution protocol drugs. Idaho refused to respond, citing a state secrecy statute that protects the identity of execution drug suppliers. The district court found the information relevant and not protected by privilege, and ordered Idaho to respond to certain discovery requests, applying a "reasonable degree of certainty" standard to determine if the information would identify the drug supplier.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted Pizzuto's motion to compel discovery, finding that Idaho's secrecy statute did not create a federal evidentiary privilege and that the requested information was relevant. The court ordered Idaho to provide certain information, while allowing the state to withhold details that would, to a reasonable degree of certainty, identify the drug supplier. Idaho appealed the district court's discovery order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's order. The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, as the discovery order fell into a narrow class of cases that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the disclosures, as Idaho failed to provide concrete examples of how the requested information would lead to the identification of the drug supplier. The court emphasized that Idaho's strong interest in enforcing its criminal laws, including the death penalty, must be considered, but found that the state did not show how its interests would be unduly burdened by the ordered discovery. View "PIZZUTO V. TEWALT" on Justia Law

A transgender student, Rebecca Roe, and the Sexuality and Gender Alliance (SAGA) at Boise High School challenged Idaho Senate Bill 1100 (S.B. 1100), which mandates that public school students use restrooms and changing facilities corresponding to their "biological sex." They argued that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and the right to informational privacy. Roe and SAGA sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that SAGA was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims. The court found that the State's interest in protecting student privacy was an important governmental objective and that S.B. 1100 was substantially related to achieving that objective. The court also determined that SAGA did not show that the State had clear notice that Title IX prohibited segregated access to facilities based on transgender status. Additionally, the court found that SAGA did not demonstrate that S.B. 1100 violated the right to informational privacy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that SAGA did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its equal protection claim, as the State's interest in protecting bodily privacy was deemed important and the means chosen were substantially related to that objective. The court also held that SAGA failed to show that the State had clear notice that Title IX prohibited the exclusion of transgender students from facilities corresponding to their gender identity. Lastly, the court concluded that SAGA did not demonstrate that S.B. 1100 violated the right to informational privacy, as the statute did not necessarily disclose a student's transgender status. View "ROE V. CRITCHFIELD" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Nike, Inc., alleging gender discrimination and hostile workplace claims. During discovery, a collection of internal workplace complaints, known as the Starfish complaints, was produced under a protective order. Three media organizations, including The Oregonian, intervened in the case to gain access to these documents. Plaintiffs' attorney inadvertently sent confidential documents to a reporter from The Oregonian, who refused to return or destroy them upon request.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon initially granted a motion to intervene by the media organizations. However, when the inadvertent disclosure occurred, the magistrate judge ordered The Oregonian to return or destroy the documents. The district court vacated this order, reasoning that it lacked authority to compel a non-party to return the documents. The magistrate judge then denied the motion, and the district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court had the inherent authority to order The Oregonian, as an intervenor and thus a party to the case, to return or destroy the confidential documents. The court determined that The Oregonian did not have a First Amendment right to withhold the documents because pretrial discovery proceedings are not public components of the judicial process. The court applied relaxed First Amendment scrutiny and concluded that the district court's exercise of its inherent authority over discovery furthered a substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "CAHILL V. NIKE, INC." on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa, challenged two provisions of Hawaii's firearms laws, arguing they violated the Second Amendment. The first provision, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-2(e), required that a handgun be acquired within a narrow time window (originally 10 days, later amended to 30 days) after obtaining a permit. The second provision, § 134-3, mandated that gun owners physically bring their firearms to a police station for inspection within five days of acquisition as part of the registration process.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that both provisions were facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court permanently enjoined the enforcement of these provisions. The State of Hawaii appealed, arguing that recent legislative amendments to the challenged provisions rendered the case moot. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the State's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, finding that the amended versions of the provisions were sufficiently similar to the previous versions.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the short timeframe for completing a firearms purchase after obtaining a permit was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that the purchase and acquisition of firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, and the State failed to justify the short temporal limit on firearms acquisition permits. The court also affirmed the district court's conclusion that the in-person inspection requirement violated the Second Amendment, noting that the government did not provide sufficient evidence that the requirement materially advanced the objectives of the registration system. The case was remanded to the district court to revise its permanent injunction in light of the recent amendments to the challenged provisions. View "Yukutake v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who are California residents and cardroom operators, challenged the constitutionality of California Business and Professions Code §§ 19858(a) and 19858.5. These statutes make a person ineligible for a California cardroom license if they own more than a 1% financial interest in a business that engages in casino-style gambling or if they have control over such a business. Plaintiffs argued that these provisions violate the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce, regulating extraterritorially, and unduly burdening interstate commerce.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California initially dismissed the complaint as untimely, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision. On remand, the district court rejected plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause claims, concluding that the statutes did not discriminate against interstate commerce, did not regulate extraterritorially, and did not unduly burden interstate commerce. Plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the cardroom licensing restrictions do not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The court found that the statutes are not facially discriminatory, do not have a discriminatory purpose or effect, and do not favor in-state economic interests. The court also concluded that the statutes do not regulate extraterritorially because they condition a state license for conducting in-state activities on plaintiffs foregoing certain business interests, whether within or outside the state. Finally, the court determined that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a significant or substantial burden on interstate commerce under the Pike balancing test. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the California officials. View "Flynt v. Bonta" on Justia Law