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

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

In 2014, defendant-appellant Justin Werle was indicted in Washington State for the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, and possession of an unregistered firearm. Werle pled guilty to both counts. The district court found that Werle had seven prior qualifying convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act and was therefore subject to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence. This finding was based in part on the district court’s determination that the Washington riot statute was categorically a violent felony for the purposes of the ACCA. A different panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Washington riot statute was not categorically a violent felony, and the case was remanded for resentencing in light of the opinion. On remand, the district court imposed a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 2K2.1(a) due to Werle’s prior convictions for felony harassment via a threat to kill under Washington Revised Code section 9A.46.020(2)(b)(ii), finding that those convictions were crimes of violence. The district court then calculated Werle’s sentencing guideline range to be between 130 and 162 months, and concluded that a total sentence of 140 months was appropriate. Werle appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Werle" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration of putative class action claims against AT&T by customers who alleged that AT&T falsely advertised their mobile service plans as "unlimited" when in fact it intentionally slowed data at certain usage levels. The panel held that there was no state action in this case, rejecting plaintiffs' claim that there was state action whenever a party asserts a direct constitutional challenge to a permissive law under Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996). The panel held that Denver Area did not broadly rule that the government was the relevant state actor whenever there was a direct constitutional challenge to a "permissive" statute, and did not support finding state action here. The panel also held that the Federal Arbitration Act merely gives AT&T the private choice to arbitrate, and did not encourage arbitration such that AT&T's conduct was attributable to the state. View "Roberts v. AT&T Mobility, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, challenging on First Amendment grounds, a school uniform policy that required their two minor children to wear shirts or sweatshirts with a logo consisting of the name of the school, a stylized picture of a gopher (the school mascot), and the motto "Tomorrow’s Leaders." Given the failure of the Ninth Circuit's en banc call, the panel held that the uniform policy—both the motto requirement and the exemption—violated the First Amendment. The panel reasoned that there can hardly be interests more compelling than fostering children's educational achievement and providing a safe and supportive educational environment. However, requiring students to display the motto "Tomorrow's Leaders" on their uniforms was not narrowly tailored to serve those interests. The panel held that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the applicable law was not sufficiently clear to put them on notice that the uniform policy would violate the First Amendment. However, because the Institutional Defendants were not individuals, they were not protected by qualified immunity. Accordingly, the panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Frudden v. Pilling" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the County's permitting scheme, which required individuals to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to host weddings on their properties. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' First Amendment claim; affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., claim; vacated the denial of a preliminary injunction; and remanded. The panel applied Kaahumanu v. Hawaii, 682 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2012), and held that plaintiffs functioned as wedding "vendors" because they seek to profit from facilitating and providing a commercial space for weddings; because they are wedding vendors, they may suffer economic injury as a result of the CUP scheme; and an injunction may redress this harm. Therefore, plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring their First Amendment challenge. In regard to the First Amendment claim, the permitting scheme was unconstitutional because it lacked definite and objective standards and lacked a time limit. In regard to the RLUIPA equal treatment claim, the panel held that plaintiffs did not assert that they were a religious institution or assembly. View "Epona, LLC v. County of Ventura" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in an action filed by a Montana judicial candidate, Mark French, alleging that Montana's campaign-speech rule, which prohibits judicial candidates from seeking, accepting, or using political endorsements in their election campaigns, violated his First Amendment rights. The panel held that Montana has compelling interests in an impartial and independent judiciary; Rule 4.1(A)(7) of the Montana Code of Juridical Conduct was narrowly tailored to those interests because it strikes an appropriate balance between a candidate's speech and Montana's interest in an independent and impartial judiciary; and French's arguments to the contrary were foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (2015), and the panel's decision in Wolfson v. Concannon, 811 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). View "French v. Jones" on Justia Law