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

Jessica Bates, a devout Christian and widowed mother of five, applied to adopt children through the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS). Her application was denied because she could not comply with Oregon Administrative Rule § 413-200-0308(2)(k), which requires prospective adoptive parents to "respect, accept, and support" the sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression of children. Bates objected to using preferred pronouns and taking children to medical appointments for gender transitions, citing her religious beliefs. She sued, claiming the policy violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied Bates's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The court found that the policy was neutral and generally applicable, thus subject to rational basis review, which it survived. The court also concluded that the policy, as applied to Bates, compelled and restricted speech based on content and viewpoint, triggering strict scrutiny. However, it held that the policy was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in protecting LGBTQ children.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Oregon's application of § 413-200-0308(2)(k) to Bates triggered strict scrutiny for both her free speech and free exercise claims. The court found that the policy restricted and compelled speech based on content and viewpoint and was not neutral or generally applicable. The court concluded that Oregon's policy was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as less restrictive means were available to protect LGBTQ children. The court remanded the case with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction enjoining ODHS from applying the rule to Bates in deeming her ineligible for certification as an adoptive parent. View "Bates v. Pakseresht" on Justia Law

The case involves several states and individual plaintiffs challenging an executive order issued by President Trump, which denies citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are temporarily or unlawfully present. The district court issued a universal preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of the executive order. The defendants appealed, arguing that the states lack standing, the preliminary injunction was improperly issued, and its scope was too broad.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, concluding that the states had standing and that the executive order likely violated both the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court found that the states would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the plaintiffs. The district court issued a universal injunction, determining that a geographically limited injunction would not provide complete relief to the states.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the executive order was unconstitutional as it contradicted the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. The court found that the states had standing due to the economic harm they would suffer from the loss of federal reimbursements and the administrative burden of complying with the executive order. The court also concluded that the universal preliminary injunction was necessary to provide complete relief to the states, as a geographically limited injunction would not address the administrative and financial burdens imposed by the executive order. View "Washington v. Trump" on Justia Law

Yuga Labs, Inc. created the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFT collection, which became highly popular and valuable. Defendants Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen created a nearly identical NFT collection called Ryder Ripps Bored Ape Yacht Club (RR/BAYC), using the same images and identifiers as Yuga's BAYC NFTs. Yuga sued for trademark infringement and cybersquatting, while Defendants countersued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and sought declaratory relief that Yuga had no copyright protection over the Bored Apes.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Defendants' declaratory-judgment counterclaims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Yuga on its trademark infringement and cybersquatting claims, as well as on Defendants' DMCA counterclaim. The court then held a bench trial on remedies, enjoining Defendants from using the BAYC marks and awarding Yuga over $8 million in disgorgement of profits, statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that NFTs can be trademarked under the Lanham Act as they are considered "goods." However, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Yuga on its trademark infringement and cybersquatting claims, concluding that Yuga did not prove as a matter of law that Defendants' actions were likely to cause consumer confusion. The court found that Defendants' use of Yuga's marks did not constitute nominative fair use and was not protected by the First Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's rejection of Defendants' DMCA counterclaim and the dismissal of their declaratory-judgment claims with prejudice. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps" on Justia Law

Lisa Bodenburg, an Apple customer, purchased a 200 GB iCloud data storage plan, expecting it to add to the 5 GB of free storage she already had, resulting in a total of 205 GB. When she discovered that the plan only provided 200 GB in total, she filed a putative class action against Apple, alleging breach of contract and violations of California’s consumer protection laws due to Apple’s allegedly deceptive representations about its iCloud storage plans.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Bodenburg’s action with prejudice. The court found that Bodenburg could not state a claim for breach of contract because Apple had fulfilled its contractual obligations by providing the additional storage as described in the iCloud Legal Agreement. The court also found that Bodenburg’s claims under California’s consumer protection laws did not satisfy the “reasonable consumer” test or the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that Bodenburg could not state a claim for breach of contract because the iCloud Legal Agreement did not promise an additional 200 GB of storage but rather additional storage, which Apple provided. The court also held that Bodenburg’s claims under California’s consumer protection laws failed the reasonable consumer test, as Apple’s statements were not misleading when considered in context. Additionally, the claims did not meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements because Bodenburg could not demonstrate that Apple’s statements were false or deceptive. Thus, the dismissal of Bodenburg’s action was affirmed. View "Bodenburg v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Mohamed Ahmed Hassan was convicted of four counts of bank robbery, with all incidents captured on surveillance cameras. The robberies occurred in January 2022 at Chase Bank branches in San Diego, California. The robber, who wore a face mask and hat in three of the four incidents, demanded money from tellers and escaped with approximately $15,400. Hassan was arrested by the FBI shortly after the fourth robbery. The prosecution presented surveillance footage and rideshare and cell phone records linking Hassan to the crimes.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California held a bench trial after Hassan waived his right to a jury trial. The court found Hassan guilty on all counts, relying primarily on the surveillance footage. The court did not consider the rideshare and cell phone records as conclusive evidence tying Hassan to the robberies. Hassan appealed, arguing that the district court improperly relied on extrinsic evidence by comparing his in-court appearance to the surveillance footage and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the trier of fact may identify a defendant by comparing their in-court appearance to photographic or video evidence. The court found that the district court did not rely on extrinsic evidence and that the visual comparison, along with other available information, was sufficient to establish Hassan's guilt. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction on all counts. View "United States v. Hassan" on Justia Law

Linda Cabello Garcia, a temporary U visa holder, sought to adjust her status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(m). USCIS denied her application because she failed to submit the required medical form. Cabello argued that USCIS lacked the authority to request this form and that her severe anxiety prevented her from complying.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed Cabello's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which precludes district courts from reviewing discretionary denials of adjustment of status. Cabello appealed, arguing that her challenge to the medical form requirement was a collateral challenge to a USCIS policy, which should be permissible under Nakka v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips district courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(m). The court rejected Cabello's argument that her claim was a collateral challenge, noting that once an application for adjustment is denied, the claim ceases to be collateral. The court also addressed Cabello's constitutional arguments, concluding that she must pursue her claims through the petition for review process, even if it requires her to remain in the United States unlawfully to be placed in removal proceedings. The court found no constitutional entitlement for Cabello to have her claim reviewed in district court instead of through the established process. View "Cabello Garcia v. Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

Donnie Bryant, a member of a Las Vegas-based street gang, participated in a gang-related shooting at the age of sixteen, resulting in a 70-year prison sentence. He was convicted under the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (VICAR) statute and for using a firearm during a crime of violence. Decades later, Bryant sought compassionate release, arguing that his youth at the time of the offense, a sentencing disparity with his codefendant, and the alleged improper "stacking" of his firearm sentences under the First Step Act constituted "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for relief.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Bryant's motion. The court held that while youth could be considered in an appropriate case, Bryant's crime was not the product of youthful immaturity, and he had not demonstrated significant rehabilitation. The court also found that the sentencing disparity with his codefendant, who received a reduced sentence through a plea deal, was not an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. Additionally, the court rejected Bryant's argument regarding the stacking of his firearm sentences, noting that his sentences were imposed correctly under the law at the time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that a defendant's youth at the time of the offense is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court also ruled that a sentencing disparity resulting from a codefendant's guilty plea does not qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason. Lastly, the court clarified that Bryant's sentences for his firearm convictions were not improperly stacked in violation of the First Step Act, as the Act's amendments did not apply to his case. View "United States v. Bryant" on Justia Law

Raul Perez Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, pled guilty to money laundering in 2021 and was sentenced to 144 months in prison. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. He conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on past experiences with cartels and fear of retaliation due to his purported cooperation with the U.S. government.An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal due to his conviction of a particularly serious crime. The IJ also denied his CAT claim, finding that he did not show it was more likely than not he would be tortured upon return to Mexico, nor that he could not safely relocate within Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that his fear of future torture was speculative and that there was no due process violation despite technical difficulties during the hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that Perez Cruz did not meet his burden to show he would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Mexico. The court also found that Perez Cruz did not overcome the presumption that the agency reviewed all evidence before it. Additionally, the court was not persuaded by his contention that audio issues during his hearing denied him due process, as there was no demonstration that the IJ prejudicially missed or misunderstood anything said during the hearing. The petition for review was denied. View "Perez Cruz v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The case involves the Trump administration's "Remain in Mexico" policy, also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which required asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. southern border to stay in Mexico while their claims were processed. The policy was first implemented in 2019, causing significant hardships for asylum seekers, including unsafe living conditions and limited access to legal representation. The Biden administration terminated the policy in 2021, but the second Trump administration sought to reimplement it in January 2025.The Central District of California reviewed the case and granted an emergency stay of the policy's reimplementation, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional rights. The district court found that the policy severely impeded asylum seekers' access to legal representation and created dangerous conditions for them in Mexico. The government appealed the stay, arguing that it interfered with its discretionary authority to manage immigration and foreign policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal and partially granted the government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit limited the district court's stay to apply only to the current and future clients of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef), allowing the government to reimplement the policy for other asylum seekers. The court found that ImmDef had standing to challenge the policy and that the reimplementation likely violated the APA by infringing on asylum seekers' statutory rights to apply for asylum with the assistance of counsel. View "Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Noem" on Justia Law

Federal agents conducted a sting operation in which Rami Ghanem attempted to export military equipment from the United States to Libya. Ghanem pleaded guilty to six counts, including violations of the Arms Export Control Act, unlawful smuggling, and money laundering. He proceeded to trial on a charge of conspiring to acquire, transport, and use surface-to-air missiles, for which he was found guilty and initially sentenced to 360 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated Ghanem’s conviction on the missile conspiracy charge due to improper jury instructions on venue and remanded the case for resentencing. On remand, the district court recalculated the guidelines range as 78-97 months but imposed the same 360-month sentence, considering the same relevant conduct as before.The Ninth Circuit reviewed Ghanem’s appeal, rejecting his arguments that the district court committed procedural errors at resentencing. The court held that the district court applied the correct legal standards in declining to reduce Ghanem’s offense level for acceptance of responsibility and did not clearly err in finding that Ghanem’s failure to accept responsibility outweighed his guilty plea and truthful admissions. The court also found that the district court adequately explained its sentencing decision, addressed Ghanem’s argument about sentencing disparities, and correctly considered conduct underlying the dismissed charge.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the 360-month sentence, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the sentence was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court also rejected Ghanem’s constitutional arguments under Apprendi v. New Jersey, holding that the district court’s reliance on conduct underlying the dismissed charge did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. View "United States v. Ghanem" on Justia Law