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

Plaintiff brought an action against the TSA, alleging discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act when she was terminated from her limited-duty position. According to the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, she suffered two injuries while working for the TSA. She alleged that she was terminated due to her disability, and despite the availability of limited duty positions that she could fill, such as “exit lane monitor,” “secondary ticket checker,” or “bypass door monitor.” Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her Rehabilitation Act claim for the second time.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing, as preempted by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (“ATSA”), Plaintiff’s claim against the TSA. The panel joined the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the ATSA, as applicable to security screeners, preempts the Rehabilitation Act. The ATSA authorized the Administrator of the TSA to set aside employment standards for security screeners as necessary to fulfill the TSA’s screening functions under the ATSA. A statutory note to the ATSA provides that the Administrator is authorized to do so notwithstanding any other provision of law. The panel held that use of the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” reflected legislative intent to preempt the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act.   Plaintiff contended that preemption was unnecessary because the two statutes could be harmonized, and preemption was foreclosed by explicit language in the Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPEA”). The panel declined to address the issue of whether the WPEA made the Rehabilitation Act generally applicable to security screeners because this issue was not raised in the district court. View "ANNA GALAZA V. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS" on Justia Law

In March 2021, Riverside County, California District Attorney sued Credit One Bank in Riverside County Superior Court. The lawsuit (the “state action”) alleged that Credit One, a national bank, violated California law by employing a vendor to make extensive harassing debt collection phone calls to California residents. In a related federal case (the “federal action”), Credit One requested that the United States District Court for the Central District of California enjoin the state action on the ground that it was an unlawful exercise of “visitorial powers,” which the National Bank Act (“NBA”) and its associated regulations grant exclusively to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”). The district court ultimately decided to abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), in favor of the state action and dismissed the federal action. Credit One appealed that dismissal.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that the district court correctly abstained because all four Younger factors were met. First, the state action qualified as an “ongoing” judicial proceeding because no proceedings of substance on the merits had taken place in the federal action. Second, the state court action implicated the important state interest of protecting consumers from predatory business practices. The panel held that the state court action was not an exercise of “visitorial powers,” and nothing in federal law prevents a district attorney from vindicating a state interest in consumer protection by suing a national bank. Third, Credit One had the ability to raise a federal defense under the National Bank Act. And fourth, the injunction Credit One sought would interfere with the state court proceeding. View "CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A. V. MICHAEL HESTRIN" on Justia Law

To comply with their duties under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the FAA issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) that evaluated the environmental effects of the construction and operation of an Amazon air cargo facility at the San Bernardino International Airport (the “Project”). In evaluating the environmental consequences of the Project, the FAA generally utilized two “study areas” – the General Study Area and the Detailed Study Area. Petitioners are the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and others (collectively “CCA”) and the State of California. In attacking the parameters of the study areas, the CCA asserted that the FAA did not conform its study areas to the FAA’s Order 1050.1F Desk Reference.   The Ninth Circuit filed (1) an order amending the opinion initially filed on November 18, 2021, and amended on October 11, 2022; and (2) an amended opinion denying a petition for review challenging the FAA’s Record of Decision, which found no significant environmental impact stemming from the Project. The panel held that the FAA’s nonadherence to the Desk Reference could not alone serve as the basis for holding that the FAA did not take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of the Project. Instead, the CCA must show that the FAA’s nonadherence to the Desk Reference had some sort of EA significance aside from simply failing to follow certain Desk Reference instructions. The panel held that the CCA had not done so here. The panel rejected Petitioners’ argument that the EA failed to assess whether the Project met California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards. View "CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, ET AL V. FAA, ET AL" on Justia Law

While at a bar at the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad, Iraq, Plaintiff was shoved by an intoxicated co-worker. She was reluctant to report the incident, but she eventually acquiesced to requests of the State Department and her employer. Because of her report, Plaintiff’s employer attempted to transfer her to a different position. After initially refusing the transfer, she was fired. Plaintiff filed suit under the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA). The district court dismissed her complaint without prejudice, allowing leave to amend.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s action under DCWPA against Valiant Integrated Services, LLC, and The Electronic On-Ramp, Inc. The panel held that to survive a motion to dismiss under the DCWPA, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that: (1) she made a disclosure that she reasonably believed was evidence of a violation related to a Department of Defense contract; and (2) her employer discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against her because of that disclosure. The panel held that Plaintiff did not plausibly allege a reasonable belief that her complaint about the shoving incident encompassed one of the acts described in Section 4701(a)(1)(A)-(C). The panel held that, in the context of a defense contract, a violation of law is related to the contract if it is related to the purpose of the contract or affects the services provided by the defense contractor to the Department of Defense. The panel concluded that, under this standard, Plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege a sufficient nexus between the shove and the Department of Defense-Valiant contract. View "SANA KAPPOUTA V. VALIANT INTEGRATED SERVICES, ET AL" on Justia Law

Section 401 certification obligates any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct activity that may result in a discharge into the navigable waters of the United States to obtain certification (or waiver of certification) from the state governing the area where a discharge would originate. The Section 401 regulatory scheme remained unchanged until July 2020, when the EPA promulgated CWA Section 401 Certification Rule (“2020 Rule”). Several states, environmental groups, and tribes (“Plaintiffs”) filed lawsuits challenging the 2020 Rule. A different set of states and energy industry groups intervened to defend the 2020 Rule. The EPA publicly announced its intent to revise the 2020 Rule and moved in district court for a remand of the 2020 Rule so that the agency could reconsider it. The district court granted the EPA’s remand motion and granted Plaintiffs’ request for vacatur of the 2020 Rule. Intervenor-Defendants appealed the district court’s order vacating the 2020 Rule.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting a voluntary remand and vacated an EPA regulation promulgated under the CWA. The panel held that a court granting a voluntary remand lacks authority to also vacate the regulation without first holding it unlawful. The panel exercised its jurisdiction and held that courts may not vacate agency actions in conjunction with granting requests for voluntary remands without first holding the agency actions unlawful. Plaintiffs contended that if voluntary remand before merits determinations existed, then so too must the authority to vacate the challenged authority in the interim. The panel held that federal courts do not have unlimited equitable authority. View "IN RE: AMERICAN RIVERS, ET AL V. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, ET AL" on Justia Law

Appointees to a university committee created to satisfy federal legal requirements sought to enjoin the university from releasing the letters appointing them to the official committee. The appointees claimed that the disclosure of such letters, which contain their personal identifying information, would violate their First Amendment right of expressive association. The district court held that there was a serious question on the merits of that argument and preliminarily enjoined the disclosure.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction prohibiting the University of Washington from releasing, in response to a public records request, letters appointing Plaintiffs to the University’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. The panel determined that here, the letters of appointment existed (and were part of the University’s public records) only because the committee members were appointed by the University according to statutory and regulatory criteria to ensure diverse representation. Their group association as committee members was not intended to enhance effective advocacy of their views or to pursue their lawful private interests but rather to fulfill federal requirements. Because, in performing their work on the committee, the members were not engaged in an association deemed to be “expressive” under Supreme Court or this Circuit’s precedent, the First Amendment right of expressive association did not protect them from the University’s disclosure of personal identifying information contained in their letters of appointment. Further, because the committee members’ work was unprotected by the First Amendment on an individual basis, their collective work on the committee was likewise unprotected. View "JANE SULLIVAN, ET AL V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, ET AL" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of felonious assault on a peace officer under section 2903.13(A) of the Ohio Revised Code and misdemeanor resisting arrest. While Defendant was in prison, he was served with a “Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order.” The notice alleged that Defendant was a Mexican citizen in the country illegally who had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was thus removable. The notice alleged that his conviction qualified as an aggravated felony because it was a crime of violence under the INA. Defendant was once again arrested and charged with illegal reentry. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his section 2903.13(A) assault conviction was not an aggravated felony. The district court denied Defendant’s motion.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel disagreed with Defendant’s contention that knowledge is not sufficient for “attempted use” because common law attempt requires specific intent. Defendant also argued that his prior offense is not a crime of violence because section 2903.13(A) does not require “violent” physical force but can be violated by offensive or de minimis contact. The panel explained that the text of section 2903.13(A) only criminalizes force capable of causing physical pain or injury and held that the type of conduct to which section 2903.13(A) has been applied by Ohio courts is force capable of causing physical pain or injury. The panel, therefore, concluded that section 2903.13(a) is a crime of violence under Section 16(a), it thus qualifies as an aggravated felony under Section 1101(a)(43)(F), and Defendant’s removal order was not fundamentally unfair. View "USA V. JACINTO ALVAREZ" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Although the Board entertained the government’s challenge to a portion of the immigration judge’s decision in Petitioner’s case, it declined to consider Petitioner’s challenges to that decision because Petitioner had not filed a cross-appeal. Petitioner argued that the Board erred when it concluded that he was required to file a separate cross-appeal to challenge the immigration judge’s alternative order on the merits of his claims.The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel observed that section 1003.3 does not expressly address cross-appeals. However, the panel wrote that the cross-appeal rule is an “unwritten but longstanding rule” under which “an appellate court may not alter a judgment to benefit a nonappealing party.” The panel explained that the Supreme Court has described this rule as “firmly entrenched,” and it has noted that “in more than two centuries of repeatedly endorsing the cross-appeal requirement, not a single one of our holdings has ever recognized an exception to the rule.” The panel noted that it was not suggesting that the Board was required to follow the traditional rule governing cross-appeals. Rather, the Board has authority to prescribe its own rules of procedure so long as the Board acts within the broad limits imposed by the Due Process Clause. The panel concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s arguments for a waiver of the cross-appeal rule because he failed to exhaust that claim before the Board. View "JORGE LOPEZ HERNANDEZ V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Plaintiff pled “no contest” or “nolo contendere” to willfully resisting, obstructing, and delaying a peace officer in violation of section 148(a)(1) of the California Penal Code. Although Plaintiff entered the equivalent of a guilty plea, the state court never entered an order finding him guilty of the charge to which he pleaded. Instead, the court ordered that its acceptance of Plaintiff’s plea would be “held in abeyance,” pending his completion of ten hours of community service and obedience of all laws. After the six months of abeyance elapsed, the charges against Plaintiff were “dismissed” in the “interest of justice” on the prosecutor’s motion. Plaintiff brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The district court held that Plaintiff’s false arrest and excessive force claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s false arrest and municipal liability claims, as well as the district court’s adverse summary judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim, and remanded for further proceedings. The panel held that the Heck bar does not apply in a situation where criminal charges are dismissed after entry of a plea that was held in abeyance pending the defendant’s compliance with certain conditions. The panel further held that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s municipal liability claims against the City of Stockton and Stockton Police Department. Longstanding precedent establishes that both California municipalities and police departments are “persons” amenable to suit under Section 1983. View "FRANCISCO DUARTE, ET AL V. CITY OF STOCKTON, ET AL" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his 188-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment for violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841 and 846 pursuant to a plea agreement. He contends that the U.S. Attorney implicitly breached the plea agreement by providing the court, both in its sentencing memorandum and its argument at sentencing, with inflammatory argument and information not relevant to the sentencing determination that could have had but one effect—to increase his sentence beyond the low-end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. Defendant argued that, by doing so, the government failed to meaningfully abide by its promise in the plea agreement not to recommend a sentence in excess of the low-end of the guidelines range.   The Ninth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge. The panel held that the government implicitly breached the plea agreement, a breach that amounted to plain error. The panel wrote that, at sentencing, the government never once stated affirmatively that it recommended a 151-month sentence or a sentence at the low-end of the calculated guidelines range. The panel rejected the government’s contention that references to damage and danger to society, the community and its families, Defendant’s prior criminal contacts, his high level of culpability, citation to a 30-year-old decision approving life without parole for a minor drug transaction, introduction of the dissension in the U.S. Attorney's Office over the low-end sentence, or its emphasis on the distribution of "massive, massive drug quantities over multiple, multiple years" were made to support the low-end guideline sentence for which the government promised to advocate. View "USA V. GERARDO FARIAS-CONTRERAS" on Justia Law