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

A religious association that supports abortion as a core tenet challenged Idaho’s laws criminalizing abortion. The organization, which operates a telehealth abortion clinic in New Mexico, alleged that its members in Idaho were harmed by the state’s abortion restrictions. The association claimed that it had members in Idaho who could become involuntarily pregnant and would seek abortions as part of their religious practice, and that it had diverted resources to open its New Mexico clinic in response to Idaho’s and other states’ abortion bans.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the association lacked both associational and organizational standing. The district court determined that the association had not identified any specific member in Idaho who was injured or imminently would be injured by the abortion laws, nor had it shown that its organizational activities were directly impeded by the statutes. The district court also addressed the merits of the association’s constitutional claims and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal on the grounds of lack of Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit held that the association failed to demonstrate associational standing because it did not identify any member who had suffered or would imminently suffer an injury in Idaho. The court also found no organizational standing, as the association’s diversion of resources to open a clinic in New Mexico and its claim of frustration of mission were insufficient under recent Supreme Court precedent. The Ninth Circuit did not reach the merits of the constitutional claims. The court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the complaint could be saved by amendment, noting that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should generally be without prejudice. View "THE SATANIC TEMPLE V. LABRADOR" on Justia Law

After failing to pay property taxes on her home in Maricopa County, Arizona, the plaintiff’s tax liens were sold to a private entity, which later foreclosed on the property. The plaintiff did not respond to the foreclosure action, resulting in a default judgment that extinguished her rights to the property. The property was then deeded to the private purchaser, who transferred it to another private party. The plaintiff subsequently challenged the foreclosure, the retention of surplus equity from the sale, and the constitutionality of the Arizona statute that allowed private parties to enforce tax liens without providing just compensation.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s injuries stemmed from the state court’s foreclosure judgment, which had already extinguished her property rights, and thus her federal claims amounted to an impermissible appeal of a state court decision. The court also dismissed her state law claims, except for one over which it declined supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims that directly attacked the state court foreclosure judgment, such as those alleging the foreclosure was an unconstitutional taking or excessive fine. However, the court held that claims challenging the defendants’ post-judgment retention of surplus equity were not barred, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, which recognized a property owner’s right to excess equity after a tax foreclosure. The court also found that the plaintiff’s facial challenge to the statute was not barred by Rooker-Feldman but was moot due to legislative amendments. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claims. View "SEARLE V. ALLEN" on Justia Law

Paul Schwartz, while incarcerated at a federal correctional facility in Tucson, alleged that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs over an eighteen-month period. He experienced a range of severe symptoms, including tachycardia, blood in his urine, and significant thyroid dysfunction, but claimed he received inadequate and delayed medical care despite repeated attempts to seek help. Schwartz specifically alleged that a mid-level practitioner, Ms. Tatad, refused to provide treatment or access to a physician and instructed others to deny him care. He also claimed that the warden and associate warden ignored his efforts to alert them to his condition, resulting in irreversible kidney injury and other long-term health risks.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona initially dismissed several defendants and later granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, allowing Schwartz’s claim against Tatad to proceed. After remand, the district court denied Schwartz’s motion to amend his complaint, then later granted Tatad’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) constituted a special factor that placed Schwartz’s claim in a new Bivens context, foreclosing a damages remedy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that Schwartz’s claim was not meaningfully different from the Supreme Court’s decision in Carlson v. Green, which recognized a Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court found that neither the PLRA, the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program, nor the factual specifics of Schwartz’s case created a new Bivens context. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Schwartz leave to amend his complaint. View "SCHWARTZ V. MILLER" on Justia Law

A university revoked a student’s bachelor’s degree in social work after being informed by a state agency that, during her internship, she accessed confidential information in a state database without authorization. The university retroactively changed her grade for the internship course to failing, notified her that her degree and diploma were invalid, and initiated disciplinary proceedings. The student, who had already graduated and obtained a social work license, challenged the university’s actions, arguing that her procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the student’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that she did not have a protected property interest in her degree, grade, or the disciplinary process, and that, even if such an interest existed, the university provided adequate process. The court also concluded that she failed to plausibly allege that she was unable to pursue a career in social work, and held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because any rights at issue were not clearly established.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the student’s university degree is a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the university failed to provide adequate process before revoking it. Specifically, the court found that the student plausibly alleged she was denied sufficient time to present her defense and was not allowed to cross-examine university-affiliated witnesses at her conduct hearing. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the procedural due process claim on these grounds and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the dismissal of the substantive due process claim and the grant of qualified immunity to the defendants for monetary relief. The appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction was dismissed as moot. View "DUDLEY V. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY" on Justia Law

A group of Latino voters from Washington State’s Yakima Valley challenged the state’s legislative district map, arguing that the configuration of one district diluted their votes and denied them an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The state’s bipartisan redistricting commission had drawn the map following the 2020 Census, but the plaintiffs contended that the map “cracked” their community, undermining their voting power. After a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington agreed with the plaintiffs, enjoined the enacted map, and, when the commission declined to draw a new map, imposed its own remedial map.Three Yakima Valley voters, who had intervened in the district court, appealed. They challenged both the district court’s finding of a Section 2 violation and the remedial map, arguing that the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause and Section 2, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction because a three-judge panel was not convened.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction, ruling that 28 U.S.C. § 2284 requires a three-judge court only for constitutional, not statutory, challenges to legislative apportionment. The court found that the intervenors lacked standing to appeal the Section 2 liability finding and to challenge the remedial map under Section 2, as they failed to show traceable or redressable injuries or vote dilution. However, one intervenor had standing to bring an equal protection challenge to the remedial map.On the merits, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the remedial map did not constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, as race was not the predominant factor in its design. The court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction except for the equal protection claim, which it affirmed, upholding the district court’s remedial map. View "PALMER V. TREVINO" on Justia Law

Oregon enacted a law requiring prescription drug manufacturers to report detailed information about certain drugs, including pricing, costs, and factors contributing to price increases, to the state’s Department of Consumer and Business Services. The law also directs the agency to post most of this information online, but prohibits public disclosure of information designated as a trade secret unless the agency determines that disclosure is in the public interest. Since the law’s enactment, manufacturers have claimed thousands of trade secrets, but the agency has not publicly disclosed any such information.A trade association representing pharmaceutical manufacturers sued the director of the Oregon agency in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, raising several facial constitutional challenges. The district court granted summary judgment for the association on two claims: that the reporting requirement violated the First Amendment by compelling speech, and that any use of the public-interest exception to disclose trade secrets would constitute an uncompensated taking under the Fifth Amendment. The court declared the entire reporting requirement unconstitutional and held that any disclosure of trade secrets under the public-interest exception would violate the Takings Clause unless just compensation was provided.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the association on both the First and Fifth Amendment claims. The Ninth Circuit held that the reporting requirement compels commercial speech and survives intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment, as it directly advances substantial state interests in transparency and market efficiency and is not more extensive than necessary. On the takings claim, the court found the association’s challenge justiciable but concluded that, under the Penn Central regulatory takings framework, none of the factors supported a facial claim that every disclosure under the public-interest exception would constitute a taking. The court remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for the state on these claims. View "Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Stolfi" on Justia Law

Two individuals alleged that the Arizona Department of Revenue, through its Unclaimed Property Act (UPA), unlawfully took possession of checks owed to them by various businesses. Under the UPA, property presumed abandoned is transferred from the holder to the state, which then lists it on a public website but does not provide direct notice to the apparent owners. The plaintiffs claimed that this process constituted an unlawful taking without just compensation and a deprivation of property without due process, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case. It found that the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief, both for retrospective and prospective relief. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing because they alleged a concrete injury: the state’s possession of their property without consent. The court also determined that sovereign immunity did not bar the claims, as the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and alleged unconstitutional conduct. On the merits, the Ninth Circuit held that the takings claim failed as a matter of law because property held in trust by the state is not considered “taken.” However, the court found that the plaintiffs stated a viable due process claim, as they plausibly alleged a property interest and that Arizona’s notice procedures were constitutionally inadequate under circuit precedent. The court affirmed the dismissal of the takings claim, reversed the dismissal of the due process claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "GARZA V. WOODS" on Justia Law

Two University of Washington professors, who serve as moderators for a faculty email listserv, were investigated by the Washington State Executive Ethics Board after forwarding emails that allegedly contained political discussion and requests for fundraising. The Board reviewed several months of their emails during its investigations. One professor was ultimately fined $750 for improper use of state resources, while the other was not disciplined. The professors, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of listserv subscribers, filed suit challenging the Board’s investigatory policies and practices, alleging that these chill their First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the professors’ complaint as unripe under Article III, finding that they had not sufficiently alleged that the Board’s policies chilled their speech. The district court also concluded that the professors’ emails, as public employees, were public records and thus not protected by a First Amendment privacy interest. Additionally, the court found the claims prudentially unripe because the Board’s investigations were ongoing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the professors’ claims are ripe under both constitutional and prudential ripeness doctrines. The court found that the professors had sufficiently alleged a credible threat of future enforcement and chilling of speech, given their ongoing roles and the Board’s history of enforcement. The court also determined that the issues presented are fit for judicial decision and that withholding review would impose substantial hardship on the professors. The panel remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the professors’ First Amendment claims against the Board’s investigatory policies and practices are ripe for adjudication. View "FLAXMAN V. FERGUSON" on Justia Law

A group of researchers at the University of California received multi-year federal research grants from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). In April 2025, the EPA and NEH sent form letters to these researchers, terminating their grants. The letters cited changes in agency priorities and referenced the implementation of several Executive Orders issued in early 2025, which directed agencies to eliminate funding for projects related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), environmental justice, and similar initiatives. The researchers alleged that these terminations were not based on individualized assessments but were instead the result of broad policy changes.The researchers filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the mass termination of grants on constitutional and statutory grounds, including violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the First and Fifth Amendments, and separation of powers. The district court provisionally certified two classes: one for those who received form termination letters without specific explanations, and another for those whose grants were terminated due to the DEI-related Executive Orders. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the agencies to reinstate the terminated grants, finding that the terminations were likely arbitrary and capricious and, for the DEI class, likely violated the First Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the government’s motion for a partial stay of the injunction. The court denied the motion, holding that the government had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding jurisdiction, standing, or the substantive claims. The court found that the agencies’ actions were likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA and likely constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. The court also concluded that the balance of harms and public interest did not favor a stay. View "THAKUR V. TRUMP" on Justia Law

A man born in New York City in July 1950 lived for nearly seventy years in the United States, believing himself to be a U.S. citizen. His father, a Nicaraguan national, was working for Nicaragua’s permanent mission to the United Nations at the time of his birth. Over the years, the government repeatedly issued him passports and affirmed his citizenship. However, in 2018, after a review of historical records, the government determined that his father had been an attaché, not a consul, at the time of his birth. This distinction was crucial because, under federal and international law, the children of diplomats (such as attachés) are not considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for purposes of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Central District of California reviewed the case after the government revoked the man’s passport and denied his claim to citizenship. The Secretary of State presented a recently executed certificate asserting that the man’s father had diplomatic immunity at the time of his birth. The district court declined to treat this certificate as conclusive evidence but, after considering the full record, found by clear and convincing evidence that the father was an attaché with diplomatic immunity, and thus the plaintiff was not a birthright citizen.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that while the President’s reception of a person as a diplomat is conclusive, whether that reception occurred is a factual question for the courts to decide, even when presented with a certificate from the executive branch. The court found no clear error in the district court’s determination that the plaintiff’s father held diplomatic immunity at the time of birth, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to birthright citizenship. View "MONCADA V. RUBIO" on Justia Law