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

Appellant a Chapter 7 debtor, was disbarred by the California Supreme Court in 2014 for violations of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct and the California Business and Professions Code. The California Supreme Court ordered Appellant to pay restitution to 56 former clients, costs for his disciplinary proceedings, and any funds that would eventually be paid out by the State Bar’s Client Security Fund (CSF) to victims of his conduct. Appellant subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and received a discharge.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the bankruptcy court’s judgment. Reversing in part, the court held that the indebtedness arising from the attorney’s obligation to reimburse the State Bar for the payments made to victims of his misconduct was not excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(7), which provides that a debtor is not discharged from any debt that “is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.” Considering the totality of the Client Security Fund program, the court concluded that any reimbursement to the Fund was payable to and for the benefit of the State Bar and was compensation for the Fund’s actual pecuniary loss in compensating the victims for their actual pecuniary losses. Affirming in part the court held that, pursuant to In re Findley, 593 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2010), the costs associated with the attorney’s disciplinary proceedings were nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(7). View "ANTHONY KASSAS V. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA" on Justia Law

The Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“JAG”) program is a federal formula grant that supports state and local criminal justice efforts. Effective Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) imposed new immigration enforcement-related conditions (“Conditions”) on Byrne JAG funds. In order to draw upon their Byrne JAG funds, grant recipients had to certify that their laws complied with independent provisions of the Federal Code, specifically 8 U.S.C. Section 1373, a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act enacted in 1996, and 8 U.S.C. Section 1644, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.   The district court for the Northern District of California and the district court for the District of Oregon determined that the Conditions exceeded the DOJ’s statutory authority and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The district courts also held that Sections 1373 and 1644 violated the Tenth Amendment, and permanently enjoined their enforcement.   In consolidated appeals, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part district court judgments. Addressing the facial constitutional challenges under the Tenth Amendment to Sections 1373 and 1644, the court held that these challenges were not justiciable in their present posture. The court explained that because Plaintiffs’ laws complied with the federal provisions, their facial challenges were no longer ripe. Having concluded that Plaintiffs’ facial challenges were either not ripe, or were mooted, the court narrowly vacated the district courts’ determinations that Sections 1373 and1644 were facially unconstitutional. View "CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Defendant contended that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion based on the dangerousness finding imposed by U.S.S.G. Section 1B1.13. In United States v. Aruda, the Ninth Circuit held that the current version of Section 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement for Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions filed by a defendant. Following Aruda, while the Sentencing Commission’s statements in Section 1B1.13 may inform a district court’s discretion for Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions filed by a defendant, they cannot be treated as binding constraints on the court’s analysis. Here the Ninth Circuit wrote that the district court did precisely what Aruda proscribes: it denied Defendant’s motion by holding that he failed to demonstrate that he is “not a danger to others or [to] the community” pursuant to Section 1B1.13. The court wrote that this holding is an abuse of discretion. View "USA V. JOEL WRIGHT" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and, in 1999, was sentenced to death by the State of Arizona. The district court granted a certificate of appealability as to five claims, and the Ninth Circuit later issued a certificate of appealability as to a sixth. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that Petitioner has not shown an entitlement to relief on any of his claims.   The Ninth Circuit filed an order (1) stating that the opinion filed May 17, 2021, is amended by a concurrently filed opinion, and that Judge Berzon’s dissent is amended by a concurrently filed dissent; (2) denying a petition for panel rehearing; and (3) denying on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc, in a case in which the district court denied Petitioner’s federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). View "JOHN SANSING V. CHARLES RYAN" on Justia Law

Liberty Insurance Corporation (“Liberty”) sought to rely on a general coverage exclusion, it was aware that its policy also contained an exception to the general exclusion if the Defendant homeowners, could show that the all-terrain vehicle (ATV) was not subject to motor vehicle registration and was used to “service” their cabin. One of Defendant homeowners was the only witness who testified during a bench trial.   After the trial concluded, the district court (at Liberty’s request) imposed Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions on Defendants for failing to disclose a witness. The district court also excluded one of the homeowner’s testimony about whether the ATV was registered and used to service the cabin, based on the theory that he had not been properly disclosed as a witness. The district court ruled that ATV was used to service the cabin at any time,” and thus found that the Defendants were not entitled to coverage.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order imposing sanctions and remanded for a new trial. The court held that because Defendants complied with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i)’s requirement to disclose “individuals likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information” for the purpose of identifying potential fact witnesses, sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) were not justified. But even Defendants had not complied with Rule 26, the district court abused its discretion by imposing Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions without analyzing (1) whether the alleged defects in the disclosures were harmless and (2) whether the defects involved willfulness, fault, or bad faith. View "LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION V. YVONNE BRODEUR" on Justia Law

The Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Mewuk Indians (“tribes”) alleged that California violated Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) by failing to act in good faith in the parties’ negotiations for compacts for the tribes to conduct high-stakes Las Vegas style casino gambling, known as Class III gaming. The district court concluded that California’s demand for tribal enforcement of state domestic support orders “pulled negotiations into a field wholly collateral to the operation of gaming facilities” and thus constituted “per se evidence of bad faith.” The district court concluded that other disputed provisions were “somewhat connected” to gaming and thus not a per se violation of the State’s good-faith duty, but California nevertheless was required to provide “meaningful concessions” in exchange for demanding these provisions, and the State’s failure to do so was a failure to negotiate in good faith, triggering IGRA’s remedial provisions.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed, on different grounds, the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the tribes. The court held that through its insistence on family law, environmental law, and tort provisions, California substantially exceeded IGRA’s limitation that any Class III compact provision be directly related to the operation of gaming activities. The court further held that when, as here, a State seeks to negotiate for compact provisions that fall well outside IGRA's seven permissible topics of negotiation, as set forth in an exhaustive list in 25 U.S.C. Section 2710(d)(3)(C), the State has not acted in good faith. View "CHICKEN RANCH RANCHERIA V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA" on Justia Law

Two members of the Poway Unified School District (“PUSD” or the “District”) Board of Trustees, (together, “the Trustees”), created public Facebook and Twitter pages to promote their campaigns for office. Plaintiffs, two parents of children in the School District, frequently left comments critical of the Trustees and the Board on the Trustees’ pages, The Trustees eventually blocked Plaintiffs entirely from their social media pages. Plaintiffs sued, asserting that the Trustees violated their First Amendment rights by ejecting them from the social media pages. The district court agreed with Plaintiffs that their First Amendment rights had been violated. Both parties appealed.   The Ninth Circuit rejected the Trustees’ assertion that the dispute was moot because after Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, the Trustees began using a word filter on Facebook to prevent any new comments from being posted. The court held that: (1) using a word filter on Facebook would not affect Plaintiffs’ claims involving being blocked from Twitter; (2) the word filter limit did not change Facebook’s non-verbal “reaction” feature; and (3) the Trustees failed to carry their burden of showing they would not, in the future, remove the word filters from their Facebook pages and again open those pages up for verbal comments from the public.   The court further held that the district court correctly concluded that at the time the Trustees blocked Plaintiffs, it was not clearly established that Plaintiffs had a First Amendment right to post comments on a public official’s Facebook or Twitter page. The district court, therefore, did not err by granting qualified immunity to the Trustees as to Plaintiffs’ damages claim. View "CHRISTOPHER GARNIER V. MICHELLE O'CONNOR-RATCLIFF" on Justia Law

Petitioner missed the filing deadline for his asylum application by over three years and argued that he qualified for the extraordinary circumstances exception to the time limitation based on his “incapacity or legal disability” due to ignorance of the relevant immigration laws, his young age of 22 years old at the time of his arrival, his lack of English-language skills, and the stress he experienced from fleeing his home country.   The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse his delay in filing his asylum application. The court concluded that none of the factors identified by Petitioner, either separately or in the aggregate, were of a similar nature or seriousness to the examples of extraordinary circumstances set forth in the regulation. 8 C.F.R. Section 1208.4(a)(5). The court held that the BIA, therefore, did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to establish the presence of an extraordinary circumstance to excuse the delay in filing his asylum application. View "MARVIN MARTINEZ ALQUIJAY V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested after two people separately reported that a man in a truck had displayed a firearm while asking them questions about an alleged kidnapping in the area. After his arrest, a search of Defendant’s vehicle and person recovered illegal firearms and a modified CO2 cartridge. He was charged with making and possessing a destructive device in violation of the National Firearms Act.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained after his arrest, in a case that required the panel to determine whether there was probable cause to arrest Defendant for displaying a weapon in a manner that “warrant[ed] alarm for the safety of other persons.” Wash. Rev. Code Section 9.41.270(1).   The court noted that Washington is an open carry state (i.e., it is presumptively legal to carry a firearm openly) in which it is a misdemeanor to carry a concealed pistol without a license, but also a “shall issue state” meaning that local law enforcement must issue a concealed weapons license if the applicant meets certain qualifications. The court wrote that the bare fact that Defendant displayed a weapon would not be sufficient to stop Defendant, because there is no evidence that Defendant was carrying a concealed weapon.   Noting that Washington courts have narrowed terms in Section 9.41.270(1) to preserve the constitutionality of the statute, the court observed that what emerges is a workable standard: The act must warrant alarm in a reasonable person for the safety of others. View "USA V. MARC WILLY" on Justia Law

Affirming the district court’s summary judgment in favor of National Railroad Passenger Corporation and other railroad companies, the Ninth Circuit held that, as to railroad employees, the federal Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act preempts California’s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act, which requires employers to provide employees with paid sick leave that they may use for specified purposes.   RUIA provides unemployment and sickness benefits to railroad employees, and it contains an express preemption provision disallowing railroad employees from having any right to “sickness benefits under a sickness law of any State.” Looking at the plain meaning of the statutory text, the court concluded that the preemption provision broadly refers to compensation or other assistance provided to employees in connection with physical or mental well-being. The court concluded that RUIA’s statutory framework and stated purposes confirm the breadth of its preemptive effect.   The court found unpersuasive an argument by the California Labor Commissioner and union-intervenors that RUIA does not preempt the California Act as to railroad employees because the benefits the Act offers are different in kind than RUIA’s benefits. The court also found unpersuasive (1) an argument that RUIA should be interpreted as preempting only the kinds of state laws that existed at the time RUIA was amended to provide for sickness benefits; and (2) various textual arguments in support of a narrower interpretation of the preemption provision. View "NAT'L RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP. V. JULIE SU" on Justia Law