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

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for rehearing, filed an amended opinion reversing the denial of habeas relief challenging petitioner's death sentence, and remanded. The panel held that the Arizona Supreme Court denied petitioner his Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing by applying an unconstitutional causal nexus test to his mitigating evidence of a troubled childhood and mental health issues. Such error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the sentence. The panel denied habeas relief on petitioner's claim that the Arizona courts failed to consider his history of substance abuse as a nonstatutory mitigating factor. Finally, the panel agreed with the district court that petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was procedurally defaulted because it was fundamentally different from the claim he presented in state court. View "Poyson v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner was not removable for a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The panel held that the state crimes underlying his removal, Nevada Revised Statutes 199.480 and 454.351, were not a categorical match to the federal generic statutes because they were overbroad and indivisible. Accordingly, the statute may not be used as a predicate offense to support removal. View "Villavicencio v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Idaho's criminalization of misrepresentations to enter a production facility, Idaho Code 18-7042(1)(a), and ban on audio and video recordings of a production facility's operations, Idaho 18-7042(1)(d), covered protected speech under the First Amendment and did not survive constitutional scrutiny. The Interference with Agricultural Production law was enacted after a secretly-filmed expose of operations at an Idaho dairy farm went live on the internet and depicted dairy workers committing various acts of animal cruelty. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of ALDF and vacated in part its permanent injunction against enforcement of the statute. The panel upheld the provisions that fell within constitutional parameters, but struck down those limitations that impinged on protected speech. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Wasden" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs in an action challenging the constitutionality of California Civil Code Section 1748.1(a). Section 1748.1(a) prohibits retailers from imposing a surcharge on customers who make payments with credit cards, but permits discounts for payments by cash or other means. Determining that plaintiffs had standing, the panel held that the statute as applied to these plaintiffs violates the First Amendment. In this case, Section 1748.1 restricts plaintiffs' non-misleading commercial speech; this restriction did not directly advance the Attorney General's asserted state interest in preventing consumer deception; nor was it narrowly drawn to achieving that interest. View "Italian Colors Restaurant v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying qualified immunity to defendant, the former-President of Southern Oregon University, in an action alleging that she violated plaintiff's liberty interest. Plaintiff, a university employee, alleged that defendant released stigmatizing information in the form of a letter in connection with his termination. The panel held that the district court's characterization of the letter's contents as stigmatizing was erroneous and thus defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, even if the content of the letter were stigmatizing, it was not clearly established law that charges other than fraud, dishonesty, and immorality would trigger the requirements of a name-clearing hearing. The panel remanded to the district court with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant. View "Kramer v. Cullinan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of habeas relief as to petitioner's guilt phase claims and vacated his convictions. In this case, a jury convicted defendant of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of rape, and two counts of forcible sodomy. The panel held that had counsel performed effectively and investigated and presented a diminished mental capacity defense based on mental impairment, there was a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have had a reasonable doubt as to whether petitioner could have formed the requisite mental state for first degree murder. View "Hernandez v. Chappell" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus based on petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at sentencing and affirmed the district court's denial of relief on petitioner's other claims. The panel held that federal court review was not procedurally barred; vacated the district court's grant of relief because it could not find the Arizona Supreme Court's determination that petitioner's counsel's deficient performance at sentencing was not prejudicial to be clearly unreasonable; affirmed the denial of relief on petitioner's claims of inadequate funding to investigate mitigating evidence and mental disability; granted a certificate of appealability for petitioner's claims of an application of an unconstitutional causal nexus standard by the Arizona Supreme Court and for ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to challenge petitioner's competency to stand trial; and denied the claims on the merits. View "Apelt v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on a claim of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Oregon state law and the grant in part of plaintiff's motion for an award of attorney's fees. The panel held that the district court's instructional error by conflating the elements of plaintiff's disparate treatment and failure to accommodate claim was harmless where it was more probable than not that the jury's verdict was not affected. The panel also held that, construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence supported the jury's verdict. In this case, the record reflected that plaintiff satisfied her burden to prove the existence of reasonable accommodations that would enable her to perform the essential job functions of her position. Finally, the district court adequately explained and calculated the attorney fee award and did not abuse its discretion. View "Dunlap v. Liberty Mutual Products, Inc." on Justia Law

President Trump's issuance of Proclamation 9645 entitled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public Safety Threats" violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and exceeded the scope of his delegated authority. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order enjoining enforcement of the Proclamation's section 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), and (h), holding that the Government's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) not only upended the carefully crafted immigration scheme Congress has embodied in the INA, but it deviated from the text of the statute, legislative history, and prior executive practice as well; the President did not satisfy the critical prerequisite Congress attached to his suspension authority: Before blocking entry, he must first make a legally sufficient finding that the entry of the specified individuals would be detrimental to the interests of the United States; the Proclamation conflicted with the INA's prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas; and the President was without a separate source of constitutional authority to issue the Proclamation. However, the panel limited the scope of the preliminary injunction to foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. View "Hawaii v. Trump" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction in an action brought by civil detainees confined in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities within the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. The detainees alleged that they were subjected to inhumane and punitive treatment. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring that defendants provide detainees with mats and blankets after 12 hours, and properly applied precedent such that neither side has shown that the limited preliminary injunction was illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. In this case, the district court properly read and applied Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). The panel also held that plaintiffs have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in issuing only a limited preliminary injunction. View "Doe v. Kelly" on Justia Law