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

A group composed of individuals, nonprofits, and businesses in Montana challenged the enforcement of a newly enacted state law, H.B. 359, which prohibited “drag story hours” and “sexually oriented performances” in various locations, including state-funded schools, libraries, public property, and certain businesses. The law imposed criminal, civil, and professional penalties, and also created a private right of action against violators. Plaintiffs contended that the statute violated their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment and to due process under the Fifth Amendment, both on its face and as applied to their speech.In the United States District Court for the District of Montana, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent state officials from enforcing H.B. 359 while their challenge was pending. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing, as at least one plaintiff demonstrated a credible threat of enforcement and self-censorship for each challenged provision. The district court then applied the Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council standard for preliminary injunctions and concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims. The court found H.B. 359 to be a content-based and viewpoint-based restriction on expressive activity that failed strict scrutiny, and further determined the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The court granted a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of H.B. 359 by the state defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal by the Montana Attorney General and Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court held that both the drag-story-hour and sexually-oriented-performance provisions are content-based restrictions on protected expressive activity and are not narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction against enforcement of H.B. 359 was affirmed. View "IMPERIAL SOVEREIGN COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA V. KNUDSEN" on Justia Law

A national trade association representing large online businesses challenged a recently enacted California statute designed to protect minors’ privacy and well-being online. The law imposes specific requirements on businesses whose online services are likely to be accessed by children under eighteen, including obligations regarding data use, age estimation, and restrictions on certain user interface designs known as “dark patterns.” Before the law took effect, the association brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that several provisions were unconstitutional on First Amendment and vagueness grounds, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement.The district court initially enjoined the entire statute, finding the association was likely to succeed on its facial First Amendment challenge. On the State’s appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated most of the injunction, affirming only as to a specific requirement regarding Data Protection Impact Assessments and related inseverable provisions, and remanded for the district court to analyze the association’s other facial challenges and the issue of severability under the Supreme Court’s clarified standards in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. On remand, the district court again enjoined the entire statute and, in the alternative, seven specific provisions.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the association did not meet its burden for a facial challenge to the law’s coverage definition or its age estimation requirement, vacating the injunction as to those. However, the court affirmed the preliminary injunction as to the law’s data use and dark patterns restrictions on vagueness grounds, finding the provisions failed to clearly delineate prohibited conduct. The court vacated the injunction as to the statute’s remainder and remanded for further proceedings on severability. View "NETCHOICE, LLC V. BONTA" on Justia Law

Two companies that operate app-based delivery platforms challenged a Seattle ordinance enacted in 2023, which aims to protect gig economy workers from unwarranted account deactivations. The law requires “network companies” to provide workers with written deactivation policies and mandates that these policies be “reasonably related” to the companies’ safe and efficient operations. The ordinance also delineates examples of impermissible deactivation grounds, such as those based solely on customer ratings or certain background checks. The companies did not contest the general bar on unwarranted deactivations but argued that the notice and deactivation policy requirements violate the First Amendment and that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the companies sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the ordinance from taking effect. The district court denied their motion. It found that the ordinance regulates conduct (the act of deactivating accounts) rather than speech, and that any impact on expression is incidental. The court also concluded that the use of “reasonable” in the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, pointing to statutory context and specific examples for guidance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. The court held that the ordinance regulates nonexpressive conduct, not speech, and thus does not trigger First Amendment scrutiny. Alternatively, if the ordinance were seen as regulating speech, that speech would be commercial in nature, and the law would satisfy the lower level of scrutiny applicable to compelled factual commercial disclosures. The court further held that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague, as it provides adequate notice of what is prohibited. The disposition by the Ninth Circuit was to affirm the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. View "MAPLEBEAR INC. V. CITY OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

Several individuals and two retailers challenged California’s statutory scheme regulating switchblade knives, arguing that these laws violate the Second Amendment. The relevant regulations define switchblades as certain knives with blades of at least two inches that open automatically, and prohibit, among other conduct, carrying such knives concealed in public. The plaintiffs brought a facial constitutional challenge, asserting a right to keep and bear switchblades under the Second Amendment.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the state. The district court concluded that switchblades are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not commonly used for self-defense and are considered dangerous and unusual. Although this finding was deemed dispositive, the district court also found that California failed to show its regulations were consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of arms regulation, but nonetheless upheld the law based on the initial analysis.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo. Applying the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Ninth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that the Second Amendment’s text covered the plaintiffs’ conduct. At the historical inquiry step, the court held that switchblades are relevantly similar to Bowie knives and other weapons historically regulated due to their association with violence and crime, and that California’s prohibition on concealed carry of switchblades is analogous to longstanding restrictions on the concealed carry of such weapons. The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that plaintiffs’ facial challenge failed because they could not show that the switchblade regulations are unconstitutional in all their applications. View "Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta" on Justia Law

An association of independent private schools and several of its members sought to prevent the enforcement of an Idaho law, known as the Children’s School and Library Protection Act. This law prohibits schools and public libraries from making certain “harmful” content available to minors, newly imposing civil liability on these institutions. The statute defines “harmful to minors” using an expansive framework, and introduces a private right of action, allowing minors, parents, or guardians to sue for violations. The plaintiffs challenged the statute on First Amendment grounds, arguing the law exceeded the limits of federal obscenity law as set out in Miller v. California.After the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, the district court dismissed some plaintiffs for lack of standing but allowed the private school plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims to proceed. The district court ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, holding the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their facial constitutional challenges to the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the statute’s “context clause” was unconstitutionally overbroad. This clause requires evaluation of a work’s serious value for minors “in context in which it is used,” which the court found threatens to regulate a substantial amount of protected speech and is not readily susceptible to a constitutional narrowing construction. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of preliminary injunction, holding that the context clause is facially overbroad, and remanded for consideration of the appropriate scope of limited injunctive relief. View "Northwest Association of Independent Schools v. Labrador" on Justia Law

A man was convicted in California of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the killing of a homeowner during a burglary in 1985. The prosecution established that the defendant entered the victim’s home, stole property, and shot the victim in the back as he was fleeing. The case against the defendant was supported by fingerprint evidence, eyewitnesses, and testimony about his actions and statements before and after the crime. At trial, the defense argued alternative theories, including that another individual was the actual killer and that the shooting lacked intent. During the penalty phase, the prosecution presented evidence of the defendant’s prior felonies, while the defense offered extensive mitigating evidence regarding his abusive childhood and mental health issues.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction and death sentence. The defendant subsequently filed state and federal habeas petitions, raising claims about his competency to stand trial, the effectiveness of his counsel, and alleged jury coercion. The California Supreme Court summarily denied these claims, and the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied his federal habeas petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal. Applying the deferential standard required by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the court held that the California Supreme Court could have reasonably concluded the evidence did not sufficiently support the defendant’s claims of incompetence or ineffective assistance of counsel. The Ninth Circuit also found no basis to conclude the trial court coerced the jury’s verdict or that California’s death penalty statute was unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. View "Beeler v. Broomfield" on Justia Law

Diamond Sands Apartments, LLC owns and operates a 360-unit apartment complex in Las Vegas, Nevada, where units are leased for long-term stays under agreements prohibiting unauthorized subletting. Clark County received numerous complaints regarding short-term rentals in certain units, which included disturbances such as loud parties. The County investigated and verified that some units were being rented for short-term stays through Airbnb. After notifying Diamond Sands of the violations and conducting follow-up inspections, the County issued two administrative citations assessing $2,000 fines for each violation, as permitted under its ordinance, which prohibits unauthorized short-term rentals and allows for fines between $1,000 and $10,000 per violation.Diamond Sands filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, raising facial and as-applied challenges to the County’s ordinance under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The company sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the ordinance unconstitutionally penalized property owners for short-term rental activity conducted by tenants. The district court denied Diamond Sands’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the fines were not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the violations and that Diamond Sands had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion and underlying legal issues de novo. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, finding that Diamond Sands bore some culpability due to its knowledge and failure to prevent ongoing violations. The fines imposed were at the low end of the authorized range, and the ordinance aimed to deter harm to residents. The court also determined that Diamond Sands had not shown the ordinance was unconstitutional in every application. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. View "DIAMOND SANDS APARTMENTS, LLC V. CLARK COUNTY NEVADA" on Justia Law

A Christian ministry in Washington State, organized as a private nonprofit, operates various social service programs such as shelters, health clinics, and meal services, with a central mission to spread the Gospel. The organization requires all employees to adhere to its religious beliefs and practices, including those regarding marriage and sexuality. When hiring for non-ministerial positions (such as IT technician and operations assistant), it screens applicants for agreement with its religious tenets and only hires co-religionists. Anticipating the need to fill numerous non-ministerial roles, the ministry faced applicants who disagreed with its faith-based requirements.After the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, which interpreted the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) exemption for religious organizations as limited to ministerial positions, the ministry filed a pre-enforcement federal action against the Washington State Attorney General and Human Rights Commission. The Eastern District of Washington initially dismissed the case for lack of standing, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the ministry had standing. On remand, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, holding the ministry was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim and enjoining the State from enforcing WLAD against it for hiring only co-religionists in non-ministerial positions. The State appealed.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The court held that the church autonomy doctrine, rooted in the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, protects religious organizations’ decisions to hire co-religionists for non-ministerial roles when those decisions are based on sincerely held religious beliefs. The holding does not extend to discrimination on other grounds and is limited to religious organizations. The Ninth Circuit found all preliminary injunction factors favored the ministry and affirmed the injunction. View "UNION GOSPEL MISSION OF YAKIMA WASHINGTON V. BROWN" on Justia Law

A law-abiding resident of Siskiyou County, California, who wished to openly carry a firearm for self-defense, challenged California’s laws that prohibit open carry in counties with populations over 200,000. As a result of these statutes, approximately 95% of California’s population cannot lawfully open carry, while those in less populous counties may theoretically apply for an open-carry license valid only within their county of residence. The plaintiff, after being informed by local authorities that open-carry licenses would not be issued in his county, filed suit against the California Attorney General, raising claims under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint contested both the urban open-carry ban and the rural county licensing scheme.Initially, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and ultimately granted summary judgment to the Attorney General. The district court concluded that the Second Amendment did not protect the plaintiff’s desired conduct and that California’s regulatory scheme was consistent with the nation’s historical firearm tradition. The district court also dismissed as-applied challenges to the rural licensing scheme for lack of standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal. Applying the historical tradition test outlined in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the court held that California’s ban on open carry in urban counties is inconsistent with the Second Amendment, as there is no historical tradition justifying such a broad prohibition. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the urban open-carry ban, remanding with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff on that issue. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment as to the rural licensing scheme, finding that the as-applied challenge was waived and the facial challenge failed under Bruen’s recognition of shall-issue licensing regimes. The district court’s judgment was thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "BAIRD v. BONTA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, which are corporate entities owned by Kenneth Gay, challenged cannabis dispensary licensing schemes in Washington State and the City of Sacramento. Both jurisdictions require applicants to have been residents of the respective area for a specified period to be eligible for a dispensary license, or to receive priority in licensing. Plaintiffs applied for licenses in both places, but their applications were rejected solely for failing to meet the residency requirements, despite fulfilling all other criteria. Plaintiffs then filed lawsuits, alleging that these residency preferences violate the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state economic interests in the cannabis market.In the Western District of Washington and the Eastern District of California, the district courts dismissed the actions at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage and denied preliminary injunctions. Both courts found that the dormant Commerce Clause does not apply to residency requirements for cannabis dispensaries because marijuana remains illegal under federal law. They reasoned that the constitutional protection of interstate commerce does not extend to a market Congress has expressly prohibited.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. It affirmed both district courts’ dismissals, holding that the dormant Commerce Clause does not apply to state or local laws restricting licensing in a market (cannabis) that Congress has deemed illegal. The Ninth Circuit declined to extend dormant Commerce Clause protections to interstate commerce in a federally prohibited drug market, noting that Supreme Court precedent counsels “extreme caution” before exercising implied authority in this area. The panel found insufficient basis to use the judge-made dormant Commerce Clause to create a constitutional right to interstate cannabis commerce that is unlawful under federal law. Thus, both judgments were affirmed. View "PERIDOT TREE WA, INC. v. WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR AND CANNABIS CONTROL BOARD" on Justia Law