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

Kyle Handley was convicted of two counts of kidnapping for ransom under California Penal Code section 209(a). This statute mandates life imprisonment without parole if the victim suffers death or bodily harm, or is confined in a manner exposing them to a substantial likelihood of death. The information filed against Handley did not specifically allege these circumstances. However, during the trial, Handley consented to jury instructions and a verdict form requiring special findings on these allegations. Following his conviction, the state trial court sentenced him to life without parole.On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal rejected Handley’s claim that the jury’s findings and his sentence should be reversed because he was not formally charged with the special allegations. The court held that the Constitution does not require an information to charge punishment-enhancing facts. Alternatively, it found that Handley received constitutionally sufficient notice of the special allegations through informal amendment of the information during a jury instruction conference at trial.Handley then filed a federal habeas petition, alleging a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. He argued that he lacked adequate notice of the special allegations because they were omitted from the written information. The district court denied the petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Handley’s habeas petition. The panel held that it was not clearly established that the Sixth Amendment requires state charging documents to allege punishment-enhancing facts. Nor was it clearly established that the notice required by the Sixth Amendment must be provided by the written information itself and cannot be provided through informal amendment. The court also found that the state court’s factual findings regarding informal amendment were reasonable. The decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law, and Handley was not entitled to de novo review of his Sixth Amendment claim. View "HANDLEY V. MOORE" on Justia Law

Charley Johnson, trustee of the Charley E. Johnson Revocable Living Trust, purchased approximately 21 acres of land bordering the Tonto National Forest in Gila County, Arizona. Johnson later discovered that many of the improvements on the land, including a house, barn, well, and corrals, were actually on National Forest Service (NFS) land due to an erroneous survey. To resolve this, Johnson filed an application under the Small Tracts Act (STA) to purchase the encroached land. The U.S. Forest Service eventually sold Johnson a 0.59-acre parcel that included the house, barn, and well but excluded the corrals, claiming they were authorized range improvements owned by the United States.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of the United States, holding that the Forest Service's decision to exclude the corrals was not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was committed to agency discretion by law. The court also found that the Forest Service's reliance on an appraisal valuing the 0.59-acre parcel at $27,000 was not arbitrary or capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the APA's narrow exception for actions committed to agency discretion did not apply to discretionary conveyances under the STA. The court found that the STA and its regulations provide meaningful standards for evaluating the Forest Service's decisions, making them subject to judicial review. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the Forest Service's decision to exclude the corrals from the STA sale was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. View "JOHNSON V. USA" on Justia Law

Lance Hara, professionally known as Vicky Vox, sued Netflix, Inc. and others connected with the animated show Q-Force under the Lanham Act. Vox alleged that an animated version of her likeness appeared in a ten-second scene in the show, as well as in the official teaser and a still image promoting the series. She claimed that the unauthorized use of her image and likeness led viewers to believe that she endorsed Q-Force, constituting unfair competition and false endorsement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Vox’s federal claims with prejudice, finding that Q-Force and its official teaser were expressive works entitled to heightened First Amendment protection under the Rogers test. The district court concluded that Vox failed to state a claim under the Lanham Act. The court also dismissed Vox’s state law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Vox appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that following the Supreme Court’s decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, the Rogers test applies when the challenged mark in an artistic work is used not to designate a work’s source but solely to perform some other expressive function. The court concluded that the defendants’ alleged use of Vox’s image and likeness in Q-Force did not suggest or identify Vox as a source or origin of the show. Under the Rogers test, the use of Vox’s likeness had artistic relevance to Q-Force, and there was no overt claim or explicit misstatement that Vox was the source of Q-Force. Therefore, Vox failed to satisfy either prong of the Rogers test. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "HARA V. NETFLIX, INC." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two national organizations and five sets of parents, challenged three Washington laws regulating minors' access to mental health care and shelter services, particularly for transgender minors. The parents' children had shown signs of gender dysphoria, and the plaintiffs argued that the laws constrained their ability to parent, forced them to censor their speech, and limited their access to information about their children.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the case for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiffs' alleged harms were speculative and not concrete injuries. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated current or future injuries sufficient to confer standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing based on current injuries because their alleged injuries were self-inflicted and not directly caused by the laws. The court also found that the plaintiffs' fears of future injuries were too speculative and not imminent. Additionally, the court held that the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not demonstrate that their members had standing to sue in their own right.The Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated standing to bring their claims and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action. View "International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Inslee" on Justia Law

Rodney Burch, the former Public Works Director for the City of Chubbuck, Idaho, filed a lawsuit against the City and Mayor Kevin England, alleging First Amendment retaliation and violations of Idaho state law. Burch claimed that adverse employment actions were taken against him due to his protected speech, which included criticisms of England’s policies and performance, advocacy for a city administrator position, and displaying a political yard sign supporting England’s opponent during the mayoral election.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Burch’s criticisms and advocacy were made pursuant to his official duties and thus were not protected speech under the First Amendment. However, the court recognized that Burch’s political yard sign was protected speech. Despite this, the court concluded that Burch failed to establish a First Amendment violation because the defendants had adequate justification for their actions and would have taken the same actions regardless of the yard sign.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Burch’s criticisms and advocacy were unprotected as they were part of his official duties. The court also found that while Burch’s yard sign was protected speech, the defendants had legitimate reasons for their actions, including Burch’s unprotected speech and the need to maintain effective city operations. Additionally, the court held that Burch’s state law claim was time-barred as the adverse employment actions occurred outside the statute of limitations.In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Burch’s First Amendment retaliation claim and Idaho state law claim both failed as a matter of law. View "Burch v. City of Chubbuck" on Justia Law

A plaintiff purchased a product marketed by the defendant as "Neutrogena Oil-Free Face Moisturizer for Sensitive Skin." She alleged that the product contained oils and oil-based ingredients, contrary to its labeling. She filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant, claiming violations of California's deceptive marketing and consumer protection laws. The district court certified a class of California purchasers of the product.The defendant challenged the district court's reliance on the plaintiff's economic expert's proposed damages model, arguing it was too preliminary and did not match the plaintiff's theory of harm. The district court found the expert's model reliable for class certification purposes, noting that similar models had been approved in other cases. The defendant also argued that the elements of materiality and reliance were not susceptible to common proof, but the district court disagreed, finding that these elements could be established by reference to an objective, reasonable consumer standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert's model could reliably measure damages on a classwide basis and matched the plaintiff's theory of harm. The court emphasized that the model need not be fully executed at the class certification stage, as long as it is reliable and capable of measuring damages in a manner common to the class. The court also held that materiality and reliance could be proven on a classwide basis using a reasonable consumer standard, and the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the inference of reliance.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of class certification. View "Noohi v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc." on Justia Law

Dionne Marie Nadon applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income in April 2015 and May 2016, respectively, citing conditions such as fibromyalgia, spinal abnormalities, depression, and anxiety. The administrative law judge (ALJ) initially denied her applications in January 2017, finding she could return to her past work as a cashier/checker. On appeal, the case was remanded because the ALJ had not adequately addressed Nadon’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). On remand, the ALJ again determined that Nadon was not disabled, following the five-step sequential analysis for determining disabilities.The ALJ found that Nadon had engaged in substantial gainful activity as a personal care attendant from July 2021 through 2022 but continued the analysis due to a continuous period of at least twelve months during which Nadon did not engage in substantial gainful activity. The ALJ found that Nadon had severe impairments but did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled the severity of a listed impairment. The ALJ determined that Nadon’s residual functional capacity allowed her to perform light work with certain limitations and found that she could perform her past relevant work as a personal care attendant and other work as a housekeeper, marker, or small products assembler.The district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the ALJ did not err by considering Nadon’s work as a personal care attendant, as an ALJ is permitted to consider any work done by a claimant when evaluating a disability claim. The court also found that the ALJ provided several reasons for discounting Nadon’s testimony and the opinions of several healthcare professionals, beyond her work as a personal care attendant. The court rejected Nadon’s argument that the ALJ erred by relying on the vocational expert’s testimony, as it relied on the rejected premise that the ALJ erred in discounting the healthcare professionals’ opinions. View "Nadon v. Bisignano" on Justia Law

A physician instructor of continuing medical education (CME) courses and a nonprofit organization challenged the Medical Board of California's requirement that CME courses eligible for credit include information about implicit bias. They argued that this requirement violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that CME courses eligible for credit constitute government speech and are therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause. The court noted that the plaintiffs could choose not to instruct CME courses for credit or address their grievances through the democratic process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court applied the factors set forth in Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. 243 (2022), to determine whether the CME courses were government speech. The court found that California has a longstanding tradition of regulating the medical profession, the public would likely attribute CME speech to the government rather than to CME instructors, and California controls the content of CME courses and imposes several restrictions on their form and delivery. Therefore, the court held that CME courses eligible for credit by the Medical Board of California are government speech and are immune from the strictures of the Free Speech Clause. The court's decision was based on the holistic inquiry into the history, public perception, and extent of government control over the expression. View "Khatbi v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 63, which established a background check regime for ammunition sales. This regime, effective from July 1, 2019, requires residents to purchase ammunition through licensed vendors in face-to-face transactions and mandates background checks before each purchase. The plaintiffs, including Olympic shooter Kim Rhode and several other individuals and organizations, challenged this regime on Second Amendment grounds, arguing it infringes on their right to keep and bear arms.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ammunition background check provisions. After the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the district court consolidated the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits and permanently enjoined California from enforcing the ammunition background check provisions, concluding they violated the Second Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit applied the two-step framework from Bruen, determining that California's ammunition background check regime implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment and that the government failed to show the regime is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court held that the regime meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms and does not survive scrutiny under the Bruen analysis. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a permanent injunction against the enforcement of California's ammunition background check regime. View "Rhode v. Bonta" on Justia Law

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) sued two landowners, the Schoubroek and Sexton families, alleging that their farms were pumping groundwater originating from the Gila River, infringing on GRIC’s water rights. GRIC sought to stop the pumping and have the wells sealed. The San Carlos Apache Tribe intervened in support of GRIC.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona found that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 and § 1331, rejecting the defendants' argument that the Arizona state court's Gila River Adjudication had exclusive jurisdiction. The district court granted summary judgment for GRIC, concluding that the defendants' wells were pumping subflow from the Gila River and ordered the wells to be shut down. The court also denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on claim preclusion grounds, despite a 2007 dismissal with prejudice of a similar complaint by GRIC.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the district court had jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction. It held that the Decree did not provide the district court with prior exclusive jurisdiction over non-parties to the Decree. The court also found that the Arizona state court did not have prior exclusive jurisdiction over the claims.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment on claim preclusion, recognizing that the 2007 dismissal did not preclude GRIC’s current claims due to the specific context of the settlement agreement. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for GRIC, finding that GRIC had not provided clear and convincing evidence that the wells were pumping subflow or were within the subflow zone. The court vacated the district court's remedy of shutting down the wells and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gila River Indian Community v. Schoubroek" on Justia Law