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

Plaintiff was cited for misuse of a vehicle horn under Section 27001 after she honked in support of protestors gathered outside a government official’s office. Although the citation was dismissed, Plaintiff filed suit to block future enforcement of 27001 against any expressive horn use―including honks not only to “support candidates or causes” but also to “greet friends or neighbors, summon children or co-workers, or celebrate weddings or victories.” She asserted that Section 27001 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments as a content-based regulation that is not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Alternatively, she argued that even if the law is not content-based, it burdens substantially more speech than necessary to protect legitimate government interests.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the State of California. The first held that Plaintiff had standing to challenge the law because, ever since she received a citation for impermissible horn use, she has refrained from honking in support of political protests to avoid being cited again. The panel determined that, at least in some circumstances, a honk can carry a message that is intended to be communicative and that, in context, would reasonably be understood by the listener to be communicative. The panel noted that Plaintiff had not alleged that the State has a policy or practice of improper selective enforcement of Section 27001, so the panel had no occasion to address that possibility here. View "SUSAN PORTER V. KELLY MARTINEZ, ET AL" on Justia Law

In this case, multiple defendants alleged that one Assistant U.S. Attorney engaged in potential professional misconduct. Rather than screening out the accused Assistant U.S. Attorney, the district court disqualified all 180 federal prosecutors from the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office from defending against the misconduct allegations. The district court then ordered the Department of Justice to supply an attorney from outside Arizona to litigate Defendants’ motions.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order disqualifying the entire District of Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office and directing the Department of Justice to supply an attorney from outside Arizona to represent the government in pending motions. The panel held that the district court’s sweeping disqualification order was an abuse of discretion. The panel wrote that based on separation-of-powers principles and the consensus among courts, disqualification of an entire U.S. Attorney’s Office is an extreme remedy—only appropriate in the most extraordinary circumstances. e panel held that the record does not support an officewide disqualification, and without any evidence of officewide involvement, it was pure speculation to conclude that any conflict or misconduct pervaded the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office. The panel also held that no clear violation of law or ethics supports an officewide disqualification. The panel wrote that the district court—whose decision to disqualify was informed, in part, by a comparison to an internal investigation of a private company—does not appear to have sufficiently appreciated the separation-of-powers concern. View "USA V. DAVID WILLIAMS, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff previously worked for the Springfield Utility Board (SUB). As part of an internal investigation into Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct, SUB restricted Plaintiff from speaking with potential witnesses and other SUB employees regarding the subject of the investigation while it was underway. Plaintiff sued SUB, certain SUB employees, and SUB’s retained counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the investigation-related speech restrictions violated the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and Plaintiff appealed.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The panel held that the communication restriction complained of by Plaintiff did not violate the First Amendment because it did not limit Plaintiff’s ability to speak about matters of public concern. Nothing in Defendants’ instructions barred him from speaking about any alleged mismanagement at the Springfield Utility Board or other topics that would potentially relate to a matter of public concern. Rather, the restrictions merely barred him from personally discussing his own alleged violation of Springfield Utility Board policies—a matter of private, personal concern—with potential witnesses or fellow Springfield Utility Board employees. View "TODD ROBERTS V. SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BOARD, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Senator Warren, alleging that her letter violated their First Amendment rights by attempting to intimidate Amazon and other booksellers into suppressing their book titled The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal. They sought a preliminary injunction requiring Senator Warren to remove the letter from her website, issue a public retraction, and refrain from sending similar letters in the future. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to raise a serious First Amendment question and that the equitable considerations did not weigh in their favor.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. The panel held that the alleged reputational harm to Plaintiffs provided a sufficient basis for standing. Senator Warren’s letter disparaged the book by claiming that the book perpetuated dangerous falsehoods that have led to countless deaths. It also directly impugned the professional integrity of one of the authors. Plaintiffs have shown that these remarks, which Senator Warren broadcast to the public by posting the letter on her website, damaged their reputations. Reputational harm stemming from an unretracted government action is a sufficiently concrete injury for standing purposes. In addition, the panel held that the requested preliminary injunction would likely redress Plaintiffs’ reputational injuries. The panel applied a four-factor framework formulated by the Second Circuit and agreed with the district court that Senator Warren’s letter did not cross the constitutional line between persuasion and coercion. View "ROBERT KENNEDY, JR., ET AL V. ELIZABETH WARREN" on Justia Law

The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (the Upper Skagit tribe) claimed that the usual and accustomed fishing areas of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe (the Sauk tribe) under a 1974 decision do not include the Skagit River, and therefore that decision did not authorize the Sauk tribe to open salmon fisheries on that river. The dispute, in this case, relates to the meaning of Finding of Fact 131 in Final Decision I, which defines the Sauk tribe’s U&As   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Upper Skagit tribe. The court concluded that the district court intended to omit the Skagit River from the Sauk tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing areas. The panel agreed with the Upper Skagit tribe’s contention that Finding of Fact 131 clearly and unambiguously established Judge Boldt’s intent not to include the Skagit River in the Sauk tribe’s U&As. The panel held that if Judge Boldt intended to include the Skagit River in the U&As of the Sauk tribe, he would have used that specific term, as he did elsewhere. The panel held that the Lane Report, on which Judge Boldt heavily relied, reinforced its conclusion. The panel held that none of the statements undermined its conclusion that Judge Boldt’s intent was clear or showed that he intended to include the Skagit River in the U&As contrary to the plain text of Finding of Fact 131. View "UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL V. SAUK-SUIATTLE INDIAN TRIBE" on Justia Law

While incarcerated, Plaintiff completed several education courses which entitled him to sentence deductions under Nevada law. After he was released and his parole ended, Plaintiff sued, asserting that Defendants’ failure to apply earned credit-deductions to his sentence deprived him of liberty without due process and denied him equal protection of the law by targeting him for the denial of credits because he is a sex offender.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s  Section 1983 against the Nevada Department of Corrections and several Department officials alleging that they violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by failing to deduct education-credits he earned from his sentence, and remanded. The panel first rejected Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because they necessarily implied that the duration of his sentence was invalid. The panel held that Heck did not apply in this case. Plaintiff was no longer in custody and was thus unable to raise claims for credit deductions in a petition for habeas corpus. The panel held that the district court erred by interpreting Plaintiff’s due process claim as asserting only a deprivation of minimum-sentence deductions affecting his parole eligibility date and ignoring his claim for maximum-sentence deductions. The panel affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection claim because Plaintiff had not alleged facts supporting discrimination. View "PHILIP GALANTI V. NDOC, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had interfered with a release and settlement agreement (“RSA”) entered into by Plaintiff and non-party Dr. Hans Peter Wild, establishing the terms of the breakup of their personal and professional relationship. Subsequently, Wild and Defendant began a personal relationship. In this action, Plaintiff claimed that Wild breached the RSA and that Defendant persuaded Wild to breach the RSA. Plaintiff sought recovery of $150 million in damages, as well as punitive damages. On April 10, 2020, the district court granted Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion.   The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal and affirmed the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety pursuant to California’s Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”) statute and dismissing the action. The panel held that the notice of appeal was timely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) required a separate document to implement the district court’s April 10 Order on Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP motion. But the judgment was not “set forth on a separate document” until May 1, 2020. Therefore, Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was timely when filed on May 28, 2020.   The panel held that where an anti-SLAPP defendant lodges a factual challenge, district courts may properly consider extrinsic evidence in evaluating whether a defendant has met her prima facie burden under step one. Here, the district court correctly evaluated Defendant’s challenge as a factual one based on her own statements in her anti-SLAPP motion and her reliance on extrinsic evidence at both steps. View "LEZLIE GUNN V. CHRISTINE DRAGE" on Justia Law

President Biden invoked his authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (“Procurement Act”) to direct federal agencies to include in certain contracts a clause requiring covered contractor employees to follow COVID-19 safety protocols, including vaccination requirements, in order for employees to be eligible to work on federal government projects. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin the vaccination mandate. This lawsuit revolved around four documents that comprise the Contractor Mandate: the Executive Order, the Task Force Guidance, the Office of Management and Budget Determination, and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council Guidance. The district court granted a permanent injunction against the Contractor Mandate, effective in any contract that either involved a party domiciled or headquartered in Arizona and/or was performed “principally” in Arizona.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting a permanent injunction and dissolved the injunction. First, the panel held the Major Questions Doctrine—which requires that Congress speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance—did not apply. Second, the panel held that even if the Major Questions Doctrine applied, it would not bar the Contractor Mandate because the Mandate is not a transformative expansion of the President’s authority under the Procurement Act. Third, the panel held that the Contractor Mandate fell within the President’s authority under the Procurement Act. Fourth, the panel held that the nondelegation doctrine and state sovereignty concerns did not invalidate the Contractor Mandate. Finally, the panel held that the Contractor Mandate satisfied the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act’s procedural requirements. View "KRISTIN MAYES, ET AL V. JOSEPH BIDEN, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged federal and wiretap violations and state common law claims against Defendant, her ex-husband, and co-Defendant, his attorney. She alleged that during a child custody proceeding in Nevada state court, Defendant had secretly recorded conversations between her and their child and that co-Defendant had filed selectively edited transcripts of the illegally recorded conversations on the state court’s public docket. The district court concluded that co-Defendant’s alleged conduct involved First Amendment petitioning activity, which is protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The district court entered default judgment against Defendant. The district court awarded Plaintiff $10,000 in statutory damages under the Federal Wiretap Act, but it did not award punitive damages or litigation costs, nor did it discuss or award other categories of damages ostensibly available on her Nevada common-law claims.   The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against co-Defendant as barred under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and entering default judgment against Defendant. The panel held that co-Defendant violated the Federal Wiretap Act, and it agreed with the district court that the vicarious consent doctrine did not apply and that co-Defendant’s conduct was not protected under Bartnick v. Vopper, which carves out a narrow First Amendment exception to the Federal Wiretap Act for matters of public importance. The panel held that filing illegally obtained evidence on a public court docket is conduct not immunized under Noerr-Pennington, and the Federal Wiretap Act unambiguously applied to co-Defendant’s conduct. Further, the court held that the district court failed to adequately address other categories of damages to which Plaintiff might be entitled. View "LYUDMYLA PYANKOVSKA, ET AL V. SEAN ABID, ET AL" on Justia Law

Appellant (the “Warden”) conceded that the Ninth Circuit Court could no longer provide meaningful relief to Petitioner after the state court’s complete vacatur of his original conviction. Although the Warden continued to contest mootness, he did so only on the ground that the district court’s alleged legal error was capable of repetition yet evading review.   The Ninth Circuit dismissed as moot an appeal by the Warden and remanded with instructions that the district court vacates its orders granting habeas relief and dismiss Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. The panel was not persuaded by this argument as the purported error could be presented on appeal following a district court's rejection of a similar argument by another petitioner or after a grant of habeas relief by a district court that was stayed by the district court or by this court, or after a grant of relief that was challenged by the Warden in that case with sufficient promptness to permit the Ninth Circuit’s effective review before release was required under the terms of the district court's order, or under other circumstances. View "MARIO ARCIGA V. SCOTT FRAUENHEIM" on Justia Law