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

California Attorney General's Form 990 Schedule B requirement, which obligates charities to submit the very information they already file each year with the IRS, survived exacting scrutiny as applied to plaintiffs because it was substantially related to an important state interest in policing charitable fraud. The Ninth Circuit held that, even assuming arguendo that plaintiffs' contributors would face substantial harassment if Schedule B information became public, the strength of the state's interest in collecting Schedule B information reflected the actual burden on First Amendment rights because the information was collected solely for nonpublic use, and the risk of inadvertent public disclosure was slight. Accordingly, the panel vacated the district court's permanent injunctions, reversed the bench trial judgments, and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the California Attorney General. View "Americans for Prosperity v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's California conviction for second degree murder. The panel held that the state court unreasonably applied Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and related cases in holding that a detective ceased interrogation and that petitioner's waiver of the right of counsel was valid. In this case, the only reasonable interpretation of what occurred between petitioner and the interrogating detective was that the detective continued interrogating petitioner after petitioner had clearly – and repeatedly – invoked his right to counsel, and that the detective badgered petitioner into waiving that right. View "Martinez v. Cate" on Justia Law

The summary arrest, handcuffing, and police transport to the station of middle school girls was a disproportionate response to the school's need, which was dissipation of what the school officials characterized as an "ongoing feud" and "continuous argument" between the students. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to defendants based on qualified immunity and grant of summary judgment for students in an action alleging that a sheriff's deputy arrested the students on campus without probable cause in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and state law. In this case, the deputy was invited to speak to a group of girls in school about bullying and fighting. When the girls were unresponsive and disrespectful, the deputy arrested the girls.The panel applied the two-part reasonableness test set forth in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 333 (1985), holding that the arrests were unreasonable because they were not justified at their inception nor reasonably related in scope to the circumstances; officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable officer could have reasonably believed that the law authorized the arrest of a group of middle schoolers in order to teach them a lesson or to prove a point; and the evidence was insufficient to create probable cause to arrest the students for violating California Penal Code 415(1) or Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 601(a), and thus plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their state false arrest claim. View "Scott v. County of San Bernardino" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to an IRS agent who violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy when, during the lawful execution of a search warrant at plaintiff's home, the agent escorted plaintiff to the bathroom and monitored her while she relieved herself. Weighing the scope, manner, justification, and place of the search, the panel held that a reasonable jury could conclude that the agent's actions were unreasonable and violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, the agent's general interests in preventing destruction of evidence and promoting officer safety did not justify the scope or manner of the intrusion into plaintiff's most basic subject of privacy, her naked body. The panel also held that the law was clearly established at the time of the agent's actions. A reasonable officer in the agent's position would have known that such a significant intrusion into bodily privacy, in the absence of legitimate government justification, was unlawful. Accordingly, the agent was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Ioane v. Hodges" on Justia Law

In the circumstances of this case, the Ninth Circuit held that federal courts should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a state criminal statute while there are ongoing state court protection order proceedings arguably related to a challenge to the criminal statute. While plaintiff was the respondent in a Washington state court temporary stalking protection order proceeding, he filed a federal action seeking to enjoin enforcement of Washington's cyberstalking statute.The panel held that the Washington state stalking protection order proceedings against plaintiff did not fit into the narrow category of state cases in which federal abstention was appropriate under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The panel reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, because the state protection proceedings did not present the exceptional circumstances that warranted abstention. Therefore, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Rynearson v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint challenging Oregon's Clean Fuels Program, alleging that it violated the Commerce Clause and was preempted by section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Program regulates the production and sale of transportation fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions.Determining that Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070, 1081 (9th Cir. 2013), was controlling as to the Commerce Clause claim, the panel held that, like the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard at issue in Rocky Mountain, the Oregon Program discriminated against fuels based on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not state of origin. The panel also held that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that the Oregon Program was discriminatory in purpose, and the Program did not violate the Commerce Clause and principles of interstate federalism by attempting to control commerce occurring outside the boundaries of the state. The panel also held that the EPA's decision not to regulate methane was not preemptive under the CAA. View "American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. O'Keeffe" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief challenging petitioner's conviction for domestic violence, assault, and vandalism. The panel held that it was error for the state trial judge not to sua sponte order a competency hearing given the numerous signs of petitioner's mental incompetency, including his suicide attempt on the eve of trial. The panel remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the writ unless, within a reasonable time, the state grants a new trial. The panel need not address petitioner's other issues and dismissed his appeals as moot. View "Anderson v. Gipson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against the City and its employees, alleging that she was retaliated against in her employment as a Community Service Officer for the police department. The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff was fulfilling her professional duty for the Department when she spoke at the City Club event. Therefore, because she spoke as a public employee, and not as a private citizen, her speech was unprotected, and her First Amendment retaliation claim failed. The panel held, however, that the Amended Agreement restricted private citizen speech on matters of public concern and failed the Pickering balancing test. Therefore, the Amended Agreement restrained plaintiff's speech as a private citizen on matters of public concern and defendants failed to present justifications sufficient to warrant the overbroad restrictions. Therefore, the prospective restriction violated the First Amendment and the panel reversed as to this claim. Finally, the panel reversed and remanded on the issue of Monell liability. View "Barone v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed suit against Oregon state officials, challenging the rejection by Oregon voters of Senate Bill 833, which would have afforded Oregon residents access to driver cards without requiring proof of their legal presence in the United States. The panel held that plaintiffs failed to establish redressability, because their requested remedies were either ineffective or beyond the scope of the district court's remedial power. In this case, the court could not order the state officials to implement SB 833 and thus issue driver cards. View "M.S. v. Brown" on Justia Law

A class of retired employees filed suit alleging that two reforms adopted by the County of Orange violated their vested rights when it restructured its health benefits program, in violation of the County's contractual obligations, and constituted age discrimination in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the FEHA claim, holding that plaintiffs had no contractual right to continue receiving the Retiree Premium Subsidy pursuant to the holding in Retired Emps. Ass'n of Orange Cty., Inc. v. Cty. of Orange (REAOC V), 742 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2014); California law did not fault the County for offering different benefits to retirees and to active employees at the outset, absent a FEHA violation; the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act applied to plaintiffs; and plaintiffs' claim of unlawful age discrimination under FEHA failed as a matter of law. The panel held, however, that the district court erred in dismissing some of plaintiffs' contract claims. The panel held that plaintiffs set forth sufficient allegations regarding the continuation of the Grant Benefit during the employees' lifetime to survive a motion to dismiss. View "Harris v. County of Orange" on Justia Law