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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by for-hire drivers challenging a Seattle ordinance that establishes a multistep collective bargaining process between "driver-coordinators," such as Uber and Lyft, and for-hire drivers who contract with those companies. The panel held that the drivers' claims under the National Labor Relations Act were unripe because they failed to allege an injury in fact that was concrete and particularized. In this case, even assuming arguendo that the disclosure of drivers' personal information to the union under the ordinance was imminent, the disclosure was neither a concrete nor a particularized injury. Furthermore, no contract or agreement was imminent. The court also held that the drivers' First Amendment claims were unripe for the same reasons. View "Clark v. City of Seattle" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to a border patrol agent who, while standing on American soil, shot and killed a teenage Mexican citizen, J.A., who was innocently walking down a street in Mexico. The panel held that the agent violated the Fourth Amendment and lacked qualified immunity where it was inconceivable that any reasonable officer could have thought that he or she could kill J.A. for no reason. The panel also held that J.A.'s mother had a cause of action against the agent for money damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 389 (1971). The panel noted its reluctance to extend Bivens, but did so because no other adequate remedy was available and there was no reason to infer that Congress deliberately chose to withhold a remedy. View "Rodriguez v. Swartz" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted petitioner's motion to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition, challenging California's second-degree felony murder rule as unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States. Determining that petitioner had standing and his claim was not effectively moot, the panel held that petitioner made a prima facie showing that his claim relied on the new and retroactively applicable rule in Johnson. The panel concluded that there was a plausible position that Johnson did not limit its constitutional rule to certain features of the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause that the State contends was absent from California's second-degree felony murder rule. View "Henry v. Spearman" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action challenging California's 2015 amendment, Senate Bill 707, to its Gun-Free School Zone Act. The 2015 Amendment preserved the retired officer exception for firearm possession on school grounds, as well as within school zones, but prohibited concealed carry weapon (CCW) holders from possessing a firearm on school grounds.The panel held that, even assuming that retired peace officers and CCW permit holders were similarly situated, SB 707 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, given the applicable level of scrutiny. Applying rational basis review, the panel held that SB 707 implicates neither a suspect classification nor a fundamental right. The panel declined to apply its prior decision in Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), to this case, and held that there was a meaningful difference between the conduct regulated by the Assault Weapons Control Act and SB 707. The panel held that the Legislature's interest in public safety was sufficiently connected to permitting retired peace officers to carry other kinds of firearms on school grounds. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiffs' contention that SB 707 violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted to favor a politically powerful group and to disfavor a politically-unpopular one. Here, plaintiffs failed to make any factual allegations to support their theory of impermissible animus. View "Gallinger v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the state in an action challenging three provisions of California's Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA). The UHA requires that new models of handguns meet certain criteria, and be listed on a handgun roster, before they may be offered for sale in the state.Assuming that the UHA implicated purchasers' rights to bear arms, the panel held that the UHA passed constitutional muster. The panel applied intermediate scrutiny and held that the Act only regulates commercial sales, not possession, and did so in a way that did not impose a substantial burden on purchasers. The panel held that the requirements for a chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism reasonably fit with California's interest in public safety; California met its burden of showing that the microstamping requirement was reasonably tailored to address the substantial problem of untraceable bullets at crime scenes and the value of a reasonable means of identification; the panel rejected plaintiffs claim that they had a constitutional right to purchase a particular handgun; and the provisions did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. View "Pena v. Lindley" on Justia Law

Under the principle of Separation of Powers and in consideration of the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants, the Executive Branch may not refuse to disperse federal grants to sanctuary cities and counties without congressional authorization. President Trump issued Executive Order 13,768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," with the purpose of directing executive departments and agencies to employ all lawful means to enforce immigration laws. The Executive Order's primary concern was sanctuary jurisdictions, which the President viewed as willfully violating Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the country.As a preliminary matter, the Ninth Circuit held that the Counties had standing and the case was ripe for review. On the merits, the panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Counties because Congress did not authorize withholding of funds in this case and thus the Executive Order violates the constitutional principle of the Separation of Powers. However, given the absence of specific findings underlying the nationwide application of the injunction, the panel vacated the injunction and remanded for reconsideration and further findings. View "City and County of San Francisco v. Trump" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's second supplemental injunction and victim compensation order in a class action against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO). Plaintiffs alleged that MCSO racially profiled Latino drivers and passengers under the guise of enforcing federal and state immigration laws.The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in formulating the terms of the second supplemental injunction; the panel thrice rejected the County's contention that it was not a proper party to this action because MCSO and its sheriff did not act on behalf of the County; the panel rejected the County's contention that it had no authority under Arizona law to fund compliance with an injunction that arose from willful misconduct; even assuming without deciding that the County's interpretation of the Arizona statute was correct, a state statute prohibiting payment for valid federal court-ordered remedies did not excuse a defendant from complying with those remedies; the statute that the County cited would, at most, prevent payment from insurance or self-insurance funds; and the County failed to explain how this law would preclude it from using other types of funds to comply with the district court’s orders. View "De Jesus Ortega Melendres v. Maricopa County" on Justia Law

Senate Bill 954, an amendment to the California labor code that imposed a wage-credit limitation on employers for payments to third-party industry advancement funds, was neither preempted by the National Labor Relations Act nor infringed plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint, holding that SB 954 did not frustrate the objectives of the NLRA and was not preempted under the doctrine in Machinists v. Wis. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976). The panel explained that, by setting a floor for employee pay while allowing unionized employees to opt-out of a particular provision, California acted well within the ambit of its traditional police powers.The panel also held that plaintiffs have no free-floating First Amendment right to "amass" funds to finance its speech and, to the extent SB 954 implicated plaintiffs' speech interests at all, those interests were not constitutional in nature because SB 954 merely trims a state subsidy of speech, and does so in a viewpoint-neutral way. Under rational basis review, SB 954 was rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of ensuring meaningful employee consent before employers contribute portions of their wages to third-party advocacy groups, and easily withstood scrutiny. View "Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to officers in an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, brought by plaintiffs, attendees of a political rally for Donald Trump, who were attacked by anti-Trump protesters as they attempted to leave the rally. The panel held that the officers violated clearly established rights and were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. The panel held that the attendees alleged sufficiently that the officers increased the danger to them by shepherding them into a crowd of violent protesters and that the officers acted with deliberate indifference to that danger. The panel also held that the City's liability was not inextricably intertwined with the officers' liability. Therefore, the panel lacked jurisdiction over the City's appeal. View "Hernandez v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit held that the unlawful entry into a residence by two sheriff's deputies, without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances, was the proximate cause of the subsequent shooting and injuries to plaintiffs. Therefore, the panel permitted the federal claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The panel held that if an officer has a duty not to enter in part because he or she might misperceive a victim's innocent acts as a threat and respond with deadly force, then the victim's innocent acts cannot be a superseding cause. In this case, the victim's action of moving the gun so that it was pointed in the deputies' direction was not a superseding cause of plaintiffs' injuries.The panel also held that plaintiffs had an independent basis for recovery under California negligence law in light of Hayes v. County of San Diego, 57 Cal. 4th 622, 639 (2013). On remand, the panel noted that the judgment shall be amended to award all damages arising from the shooting in plaintiffs favor as proximately caused by the unconstitutional entry, and proximately caused by the failure to get a warrant. Judgment shall also be entered for plaintiffs on the California negligence claim for the same damages arising out of the shooting. View "Mendez v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law