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

In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether the renewal of forty-one water supply contracts by the United States Bureau of Reclamation violated section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and illegally threatened the existence of the delta smelt. The contracts at issue fell into two groups: (1) users who obtained water from the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC contracts), and (2) parties who claimed to hold water rights senior to those held by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation with regard to a Central Valley Project and who previously entered into settlement contracts with the Bureau (settlement contractors). The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the DMC contracts and that Plaintiffs' claims against the settlement contractors failed because the contracts were not discretionary and were thus exempted from section 7(a)(2) compliance. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing with regard to the contracts and that section 7(a)(2) of the ESA did not apply to the settlement contracts. View "Natural Res. Defense Council v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Howard Back filed this suit alleging that Secretary of Heath and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius violated her duties under the Medicare Act and the Due Process Clause by failing to provide an administrative process for beneficiaries of hospice care to appeal a hospice provider's refusal to provide a drug prescribed by their attending physician. The district court granted the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings because Back had not exhausted his administrative remedies. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and dismissed the appeal as moot, holding that although the government led Back to believe there was no appeal process, such a process did exist. Accordingly, no controversy existed and the appeal was moot. View "Back v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Puget Sound Energy (PSE) maintains and operates a hydroelectric power plant at Snoqualmie Falls in Washington state. PSE sought verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that it could proceed with upgrading and modifying its plant under a series of general nationwide permits (NWPs) authorizing certain discharges rather than applying to the Corps for an individual permit. PSE had already obtained a license for the project from FERC. The Corps verified that it could. Downstream property owners formed the Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance (Alliance) to challenge this decision. The district court granted summary judgment for the Corps. The Ninth Circuit court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) this suit was not an improper collateral attack against the FERC license and amendment; (2) NWP 17, the only nationwide permit which specifically references hydropower projects, is not exclusively applicable to hydropower projects; (3) the Corps did not err in verifying that NWPs 3 and 39 authorize the project; and (4) the Corps' verification letter contained a sufficient articulation of the basis for its decision. View "Snoqualmie Valley Pres. Alliance v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court seeking damages for the 31 months during which they were barred from improving their shoreline property by the moratorium imposed by local officials on new projects. Plaintiffs asserted that the moratorium violated their substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and sought damages against the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court concluded that the moratorium ordinances were validly enacted, nonarbitrary, and manifestly related to the city's legitimate municipal interests. Accordingly, the court held that the city did not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "Samson, et al. v. City of Bainbridge Island" on Justia Law

The Lands Commission appealed the district court's final judgment in this eminent domain case, wherein the United States took a fee simple interest in the property at issue on behalf of the Navy, which has continuously leased this parcel since 1949. In condemning the property, the United States sought to extinguish California's public trust rights. The court concluded that, having paid just compensation, the United States was entitled to the interest it sought in its complaint in condemnation; full fee simple, free of California's public trust. The court concluded that neither the equal-footing doctrine nor the public trust doctrine prevented the federal government from taking that interest in the land unencumbered.

Plaintiff appealed an order of the district court affirming the Commissioner's final decision denying her disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (SSA), 42 U.S.C. 401-434. At issue, among other things, was whether the district court should have considered evidence plaintiff did not submit to the ALJ but submitted for the first time to the Appeals Council, which accepted and considered the new evidence but declined to review the ALJ's decision. The court held that when a claimant submitted evidence for the first time to the Appeals Council, which considering that evidence in denying review of the ALJ's decision, the new evidence was part of the administrative record, which the district court must consider in determining whether the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Considering the record as a whole, the court concluded that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for an immediate award of benefits.

Plaintiffs brought a First Amendment and other constitutional challenges to regulations and associated guidelines that required permits for "commercial weddings" on public beaches in Hawaii. The court held that Hawaii's regulation of commercial weddings on unencumbered state beaches did not violate the First Amendment, except for a provision giving an official absolute discretion to revoke a permit at anytime and to modify it as the official deemed necessary or appropriate.

This case stemmed from the denial of plaintiff's claim of social security disability benefits. At issue was whether the ALJ's handling of an ex parte contact was error, and if so, whether it was harmless. Because the ALJ erred by considering the ex parte evidence without allowing a supplementary hearing, the court was required to evaluate whether there was prejudice. The court concluded that there was no prejudice from the error where, considering the record as a whole, and the ALJ's explanation of his decision, the court was convinced that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the decision would have been any different without the ex parte communication. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

In expedited petitions for review, the court considered the allegations of petitioners that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) failed to discharge obligations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) in approving Shell's plan for exploratory oil drilling in the Beaufort Sea. The court concluded that BOEM's decision that Shell's exploration plan complied with OCSLA's requirements was entitled to deference and was supported by the record as a whole. Accordingly, the court denied the expedited petitions.

Defendant, a city police officer, appealed from the denial of qualified immunity in plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation. The district court held that it was clearly established in December 2008 that a supervisor could not retaliate against a public employee for his or her subpoenaed deposition testimony offered as a citizen in the context of a civil rights lawsuit. The court agreed and affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.