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

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

The Ninth Circuit granted Frimmel's petition for review of the ALJ's final decision and order declining to suppress employment records ICE obtained through an investigation of Frimmel's compliance with employment verification requirements. ICE had initiated an investigation of Frimmel after the Maricopa Sheriff's Office (MCSO) conducted illegal raids of two restaurants and the home of Bret Frimmel, owner of Frimmel.The panel held that MCSO committed knowing or reckless material omissions and distortions in search warrant affidavits that resulted in a search violating the Fourth Amendment, and the violation was egregious because a reasonable officer should have known the conduct was unconstitutional. The panel also held that ICE's investigation was not attenuated from MCSO's illegal raid and ICE's evidence was the fruit of MCSO's illegal raid. Finally, the panel held that MCSO's conduct easily met the flagrancy standards and it had immigration enforcement in its "zone of primary interest." Therefore, the exclusionary rule would serve to deter MCSO from Fourth Amendment violations by the probability that illegally obtained evidence would not be useful to ICE, even in a civil proceeding. The panel reversed the ALJ's ruling that denied suppression of ICE's evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule, remanding for further proceedings. View "Frimmel Management, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

The Foundation filed suit challenging a religious exercise at a local school board's meetings, including a prayer in the portion of the meeting that was open to the public and that included student attendees and participants. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and injunctive relief to the Foundation, holding that invocations to start the open portions of school board meetings were not within the legislative prayer tradition that allowed certain types of prayer to open legislative sessions, because these prayers typically take place before groups of schoolchildren whose attendance was not truly voluntary and whose relationship to school district officials, including the school board, was not one of full parity. Applying the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971), the panel held that the Board's prayer policy lacked a secular legislative purpose and thus violated the Establishment Clause. The panel also held that the district court's injunction was not overbroad because it was limited to restricting only speech that constituted a governmental establishment of religion. View "Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted and sentenced to death for killing an FBI agent. The panel applied de novo review and held that an unrevealed connection between the FBI agent and the judge who presided over petitioner's trial violated due process by creating a constitutionally intolerable risk of judicial bias. In this case, the FBI agent had previously investigated the judge for possible criminal prosecution. The panel held that the risk of bias deprived petitioner of a fair tribunal to which he was constitutionally entitled. View "Echavarria v. Filson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded firearm in public for self defense by denying his application for a firearms license. The Ninth Circuit held that, while the concealed carry of firearms categorically fell outside Second Amendment protection, the Second Amendment encompassed a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self defense. Therefore, H.R.S. 134-restricted plaintiff in exercising such right and thus burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment. The panel held that Hawaii's limitation on the open carry of firearms to those engaged in the protection of life and property violated the core of the Second Amendment and was void under any level of scrutiny. The panel explained that restricting open carry to those whose job entail protecting life or property necessarily restricts open carry to a small and insulated subset of law-abiding citizens, and the typical, law-abiding citizen in the state was entirely foreclosed from exercising the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self defense. View "Young v. Hawaii" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 as time-barred. Petitioner filed an amended habeas petition eight months after the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) had run. The panel held that the facts set out in the state court order were not clearly incorporated into petitioner's original petition, and Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States precluded the panel from construing the petition as incorporating such facts. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that the amended petition could not relate back to the claims in his original petition. View "Ross v. Williams" on Justia Law

If plaintiffs in 42 U.S.C.1983 actions demonstrate that their conditions of confinement have been restricted solely because of overcrowding or understaffing at a prison facility, a deference instruction ordinarily should not be given. Similarly, if plaintiffs in 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions demonstrate that they have been subjected to search procedures that are an unnecessary, unjustified, or exaggerated response to concerns about jail safety, the court need not defer to jail officials.Plaintiff appealed the partial grant of summary judgment for defendants on her 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging inadequate medical care, and the denial of her motion for a new trial. Plaintiff challenged several conditions of her confinement and the procedures that the County used to classify her as mentally ill. The Ninth Circuit held that the magistrate judge should not have given the deference instruction to plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims, where the only justification that jail officials offered for curtailing her meals, showers, and recreation was a concern about overcrowding and understaffing in the facility. The panel also held that the magistrate judge erred in instructing the jury to give deference to the jail officials on plaintiff's claim of excessive search, because substantial evidence supporter her arguments that this search practice was an unnecessary, unjustified, and exaggerated response to jail officials’ need for prison security. Accordingly, the panel vacated and remanded. View "Shorter v. Baca" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel at resentencing. The panel held that counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge evidence that petitioner committed murder for pecuniary gain, and by failing to conduct an adequate investigation of mitigating factors; the state post-conviction court's contrary conclusion was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington and Wiggins v. United States; and there was a reasonable likelihood that petitioner would have received a different sentence if counsel's performance were not deficient. Accordingly, the panel remanded with instructions to grant a conditional writ. View "White v. Ryan" on Justia Law