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

Oregon minority-party state senator alleged that majority party members retaliated against him for engaging in protected speech when Defendants ordered him not to enter the state capitol without giving them 12 hours advance notice.     The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The court held that Plaintiff’s complaint raised a plausible inference that he was engaged in protected speech. However, in considering Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s speech was unprotected fighting words, the court held that at the motion to dismiss stage, it could not say that Plaintiff’s statements created a likelihood that the person addressed would make an immediate violent response.   The court explained that an elected official raising a First Amendment retaliation claim has the initial burden of pleading and proving that: (1) he engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) as a result, he was subjected to adverse action by the defendant that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity; and (3) there was a substantial causal relationship between the constitutionally protected activity and the adverse action. Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the defendant official to demonstrate that even without the impetus to retaliate he would have taken the action complained of.   Here, Plaintiff satisfied the second prong of the prima facie test and his complaint plausibly alleged that his speech played a part in the retaliation. Thus, Defendants’ affirmative defense was not grounds for dismissal at the pleading stage. View "BRIAN BOQUIST V. PETER COURTNEY" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of the agency’s rejection of his Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claim and rejection of his motion to reopen and remand his removal proceedings.The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen and substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).The court reasoned that Petitioner’s current proceeding was initiated with a different charging document which made Pereira inapplicable. Even if the court were to assume the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) and Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge (“NOR”) was analogous, his argument is foreclosed by precedent holding that when hearing details are later provided there is no jurisdictional defect.Further, the court explained that while petitioners seeking CAT relief are not required to demonstrate that safe relocation would be impossible, they do carry the burden to establish that it is more likely than not that they will be tortured. Here, the court concluded that the evidence established that Petitioner’s relocation to his home state was eminently possible. Moreover, the court found that the record would not compel the finding that Petitioner established a more than 50% chance of future torture. Finally, the court explained that Petitioner failed to show that he faces a particularized, ongoing risk of future torture higher than that faced by all other citizens in his country. View "JOSE TZOMPANTZI-SALAZAR V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

A dentist, his professional corporation, and a teledentistry company (collectively "Plaintiffs") alleged that the Dental Board of California conspired to harass them with unfounded investigations. Plaintiffs alleged that the harassment arose after they developed an online service model for patients.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims under the Dormant Commerce Clause. The court reasoned that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Article III standing because they alleged an injury that was traceable to Defendants’ challenged conduct. Further, the court found that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged anticompetitive concerted action. The court rejected the proposition that regulatory board members and employees cannot form an anticompetitive conspiracy.   Further, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants subjected them to disparate treatment in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court explained that a class-of-one plaintiff must be similarly situated to the proposed comparator. Here, Plaintiffs did not meet this standard because instead of claiming they stood the same as others, they touted their differences.   The court did not review the lower court’s denial of state-action immunity. View "JEFFREY SULITZER V. JOSEPH TIPPINS" on Justia Law

Pesticides sold in the United States generally must be registered by the EPA. Private parties can petition the EPA to cancel the registration of a pesticide, and the EPA is required to resolve those petitions “within a reasonable time.” The Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”)’ petitioned the EPA to cancel the registration of tetrachlorvinphos (“TCVP”), for use in household pet products. After delays, the EPA eventually denied NRDC’s petition.The court held that the EPA’s denial of NRDC’s petition was not supported by substantial evidence. The EPA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its denial of NRDC’s petition and made several arbitrary calculations. The EPA’s errors primarily impacted two calculations central to its denial of NRDC’s petition: (1) the amount of TCVP dust released by the pet collars, and (2) the assumption that pet owners will trim the collars by at least 20%.The court found that it could only uphold agency action based on the reasons the agency gave for its decision. The panel held further that the EPA’s assumption that only 14.6% of the dust released from the collars was TCVP was troubling on the merits. The court held that it would not defer to the EPA’s highly inaccurate calculation that pet owners will trim pet collars by 20% when fitting the collar onto a pet’s neck. The court concluded that it was apparent that the EPA’s denial of NRDC’s petition was simply not supported by substantial evidence when considered on the record as a whole. View "NRDC V. USEPA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that the energy companies’ extraction of fossil fuels and other activities were a substantial factor in causing global warming and a rise in the sea level, bringing causes of action for public and private nuisance, strict liability, strict liability, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass.The court held that the district court lacked federal question jurisdiction under Sec. 1331 because, at the time of removal, the complaints asserted only state-law tort claims against the energy companies. The court held that Plaintiffs’ global-warming claims did not fall within the Grable exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule. In addition, Plaintiffs’ state law claims did not fall under the “artful-pleading” doctrine, another exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, because they were not completely preempted by the Clean Air Act.Further, the court found Plaintiffs’ claims were not removable under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The court also held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute, Sec. 1442(a)(1), because the energy companies were not “acting under” a federal officer’s directions. The court then rejected the energy companies’ argument that the district court had removal jurisdiction over the complaints under Sec. 1452(a) because they were related to bankruptcy cases involving Peabody Energy Corp., Arch Coal, and Texaco, Inc. Finally, the court held that the district court did not have admiralty jurisdiction because maritime claims brought in state court are not removable to federal court absent an independent jurisdictional basis. View "COUNTY OF SAN MATEO V. CHEVRON CORP." on Justia Law

The court addressed the threshold question of whether Defendant’s conduct advanced “the criminal purpose charged.” The court emphasized that Defendant was not charged with attempting to engage in sexual activity with a minor; rather, the “criminal purpose charged” under Sec. 2422(b) was the “attempt to achieve the mental act of assent.” The court reasoned that Defendant’s multiple proposed lurid rendezvous, even if hypothetical, constituted a substantial step in his attempt to cause a minor to assent to unlawful sexual activity. The court rejected Defendant’s claim that physical proximity or his attempt to travel was necessary to constitute a substantial step under Sec 2422(b).Addressing the second element, the court held that a rational juror could readily conclude that the facts show that Defendant attempted to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor’s assent to unlawful sexual activity. Third, the court found that an actual minor victim is not required for an attempt conviction under Sec 2422(b). Finally, to the fourth element, the court wrote that Defendant properly conceded that United States v. Lopez, 4 F.4th 706 (9th Cir. 2021), rejected his argument that the Guam statute mentioned in the indictment does not apply to conduct on a military base because it was “not . . . assimilated into federal law under the Assimilative Crimes Act.” The court addressed other arguments concerning the conviction and sentence in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. View "USA V. MICHAEL MCCARRON" on Justia Law

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) published the Kenai Rule, codifying its ban on baiting Kenai Refuge brown bears and its closing of the Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area (“Skilak WRA”) to certain animals.The court held that the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”) preserved the federal government’s plenary power over public lands in Alaska. The court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments that the Service exceeded its statutory authority in enacting the Kenai Rule. The court held that while the Alaska Statehood Act transferred the administration of wildlife from Congress to the State, the transfer did not include lands withdrawn or set apart as refuges or reservations for the protection of wildlife, like the Kenai Refuge. Next, the court held that Plaintiff’s assertion that the Service could preempt the State’s hunting regulations on federal lands in Alaska was unsupported by the law.Further, the court rejected Safari Club’s contention that the Skilak WRA aspect of the Kenai Rule violated the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (“Improvement Act”). The court held that The Improvement Act did not require the Service to allow all State-sanctioned hunting throughout the Kenai Refuge. Moreover, the court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments that the Service violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the Kenai Rule. Finally, the court rejected Plaintiffs’ two-part National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) argument. The panel concluded that there was no basis for reversal. View "SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL V. DEBRA HAALAND" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were six citizens of Mexico who were recruited to work as “Animal Scientists” at Funk Dairy in Idaho under the “TN Visa” program for “professional” employees established under the North American Free Trade Agreement. When Plaintiffs arrived at the dairy, they were instead required to work primarily as general laborers. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ bait-and-switch tactics violated applicable federal statutory prohibitions on forced labor by, among other things, abusing the TN Visa program in order to coerce Plaintiffs to provide menial physical labor.Defendants conceded that all Plaintiffs believed that their ability to remain lawfully in the U.S. depended on their continued employment at Funk Dairy. The court concluded that in light of that concession and its obligation, a reasonable jury could find that Funk Dairy knowingly obtained Plaintiffs’ labor by abusing the TN Visa process in order to exert pressure on Plaintiffs to provide labor that was substantially different from what had been represented to them and to federal consular officials.The court held that Funk Dairy’s conduct violated provisions of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 77, prohibiting forced labor and trafficking of persons into forced labor. Plaintiffs, therefore, asserted triable causes of action under the civil suit provision of Chapter 77, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1595(a). The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiffs’ federal claims, it also reversed the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under state law. View "CESAR MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ V. CURTIS GILES" on Justia Law

LinkedIn Corp. sent hiQ Labs, Inc. ("hiQ") a cease-and-desist letter, asserting that hiQ violated LinkedIn’s User Agreement. LinkedIn asserted that if hiQ accessed LinkedIn’s data in the future, it would be violating state and federal law, including the CFAA, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and the California common law of trespass.HiQ sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that LinkedIn could not lawfully invoke the CFAA, the DMCA, California Penal Code Sec. 502(c), or the common law of trespass against it. LinkedIn appealed the district court’s decision ordering LinkedIn to withdraw its cease-and-desist letter, to remove any existing technical barriers to hiQ’s access to public profiles, and to refrain from putting in place any legal or technical measures with the effect of blocking hiQ’s access to public profiles.The court affirmed the district court, finding that hiQ currently had no viable way to remain in business other than using LinkedIn public profile data for its “Keeper” and “Skill Mapper” analytics services and that hiQ demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction. The court found that the district court properly determined that the balance of hardships tipped in hiQ’s favor. The court concluded that hiQ showed a sufficient likelihood of establishing the elements of its claim for contract interference, and it raised a question on the merits of LinkedIn’s affirmative justification defense. Finally, the court found that the district court properly determined that the public interest favored hiQ’s position. View "HIQ LABS, INC. V. LINKEDIN CORPORATION" on Justia Law

The district court ruled that two of Defendant’s prior felony convictions, a 2007 conviction for criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute (“2007 marijuana conviction”) and a 2013 conviction for criminal distribution of dangerous drugs (“2013 cocaine conviction”)—qualified as “controlled substance offenses” under USSG Sec 4B1.2(b). The district court, in turn, applied the enhancement in USSG Sec. 2K2.1(a)(2).The court accepted the government’s concession that United States v. Bautista, 989 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 2021), is controlling as to the sentencing enhancement based on the 2007 marijuana conviction, and that the court should remand for resentencing without treating the marijuana conviction as a qualifying offense. The court held that although Defendant’s accountability statutes include offers to engage in prohibited conduct, they are not rendered categorically overbroad with respect to Secs. 4B1.2(b) and 2K2.1(a).The court held (1) that when the district court reached its decision that a cocaine conviction under Montana Code Annotated Secs. 45-9-101 and 50-32- 224(1)(d) could constitute a controlled substance offense under Sec. 4B1.2(b), there was no (and there still is no) binding precedent to the contrary; and (2) that certain of the grounds for the district court’s rulings were not rejected in binding precedent until after its sentencing decision.The court reversed the district court’s sentencing enhancement insofar as it rested on Defendant’s 2007 marijuana conviction and remanded for resentencing. Finally, the district court’s determination regarding Defendant’s 2013 cocaine conviction was not plainly erroneous. View "USA V. ROBERT HOUSE" on Justia Law