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

Two blind individuals, after enrolling at a community college in Los Angeles, were approved for disability accommodations, including accessible course materials and technology. Despite these approvals, they faced repeated barriers in accessing required textbooks, online platforms, library resources, and other educational tools. They also experienced difficulties in receiving their approved accommodations, such as accessible test-taking and note-taking support. These obstacles led to their inability to participate fully in their courses and, in one case, being steered away from certain classes due to their disability.After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the jury found the college district liable on multiple counts and awarded damages for intentional violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court, however, reduced the damages to only out-of-pocket expenses, concluding that the jury’s award could only be for emotional distress or lost educational opportunities—both of which it believed were not recoverable. The district court also issued injunctive relief. The plaintiffs appealed the reduction of damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that, under Supreme Court precedent, emotional distress damages are not available under Title II of the ADA because the statute’s remedies are coextensive with those of the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which do not permit such damages. However, the Ninth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs may recover compensatory damages for loss of educational opportunities resulting from ADA violations. The court found that the jury’s award was supported by evidence and the instructions given. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s remittitur, vacated its judgment as to damages, and remanded with instructions to reinstate the original jury awards. View "PAYAN V. LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT" on Justia Law

Federal agents investigated a fatal fentanyl overdose in Goleta, California, and traced the source to Isaac Tekola. They discovered that Tekola had been selling drugs for years, primarily from his apartment. A search of his apartment revealed significant quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and Alprazolam, along with nearly $13,000 in cash, drug paraphernalia, and evidence that drug sales occurred at his residence. Tekola admitted that the cash came from drug dealing, and that a safe in his closet was used to store drugs and proceeds. His cell phone contained numerous messages confirming that his apartment was the hub of his trafficking operation.A grand jury indicted Tekola on several counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 841. He pled guilty to all charges without a plea agreement. At sentencing, the United States District Court for the Central District of California applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing controlled substances. Tekola argued that, because his apartment was his primary residence, drug trafficking was not a primary or principal use of the premises. The district court found overwhelming evidence that the apartment was used as the central location for his drug business and imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 105 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines for abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement. The Ninth Circuit clarified that maintaining a primary residence as a central hub for substantial drug trafficking activity qualifies for the enhancement, even if the premises also serve as a residence, affirming Tekola’s sentence. View "USA V. TEKOLA" on Justia Law

A noncitizen applied to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a U visa, which is available to victims of certain crimes who assist law enforcement. However, he acknowledged being inadmissible to the United States due to prior unlawful entries and removals, and sought a waiver of inadmissibility, which is granted at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security if considered to be in the public or national interest. USCIS denied both his waiver request and his U visa application. He appealed the denials within the agency, but the Administrative Appeals Office dismissed the appeal. After the agency reopened and reconsidered his applications, it again denied both.The plaintiff then filed a suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging the denial of his waiver and U visa. He later amended his complaint to add a claim that USCIS violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process by exhibiting bias. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, holding that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) precludes judicial review in district courts of discretionary waiver decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(14).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s jurisdictional determination de novo. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the agency’s denial of a waiver is within the discretionary authority specified in the INA and thus falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips district court jurisdiction. The court clarified that the savings clause in § 1252(a)(2)(D) applies only to petitions for review of final orders of removal in courts of appeals, not to APA suits in district court. The court also found no colorable constitutional claim challenging agency procedures and thus lacked jurisdiction over that claim as well. View "CHAIREZ V. MAYORKAS" on Justia Law

The President issued an executive order in January 2025 suspending the entry of all refugees into the United States under the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), citing concerns about national capacity and security. The Department of State, in response, suspended and later terminated funding for both overseas and domestic refugee resettlement services, including cooperative agreements with resettlement organizations. Plaintiffs, consisting of affected refugees and resettlement agencies, challenged these actions, arguing that the suspension exceeded the President’s statutory authority and that the funding terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Refugee Act.Upon review, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted two preliminary injunctions. The first prohibited enforcement of the executive order suspending refugee admissions and related funding, and the second required the reinstatement of terminated cooperative agreements with resettlement agencies. The Government immediately appealed and sought stays of these injunctions. The district court also certified three plaintiff classes and further clarified the scope of its injunctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the President acted within his statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) in suspending refugee admissions and in pausing decisions on refugee applications, and it reversed the district court’s injunctions to the extent they blocked these actions. The court also concluded that suspending overseas refugee processing and related funding did not violate the Refugee Act or the APA. However, the court affirmed the injunction as to the termination of domestic resettlement services, holding that the Government was likely acting contrary to law and arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to provide statutorily mandated resettlement services to admitted refugees. The scope of the injunction was upheld as compliant with recent Supreme Court precedent. View "PACITO V. TRUMP" on Justia Law

Two companies that operate app-based delivery platforms challenged a Seattle ordinance enacted in 2023, which aims to protect gig economy workers from unwarranted account deactivations. The law requires “network companies” to provide workers with written deactivation policies and mandates that these policies be “reasonably related” to the companies’ safe and efficient operations. The ordinance also delineates examples of impermissible deactivation grounds, such as those based solely on customer ratings or certain background checks. The companies did not contest the general bar on unwarranted deactivations but argued that the notice and deactivation policy requirements violate the First Amendment and that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the companies sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the ordinance from taking effect. The district court denied their motion. It found that the ordinance regulates conduct (the act of deactivating accounts) rather than speech, and that any impact on expression is incidental. The court also concluded that the use of “reasonable” in the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, pointing to statutory context and specific examples for guidance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. The court held that the ordinance regulates nonexpressive conduct, not speech, and thus does not trigger First Amendment scrutiny. Alternatively, if the ordinance were seen as regulating speech, that speech would be commercial in nature, and the law would satisfy the lower level of scrutiny applicable to compelled factual commercial disclosures. The court further held that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague, as it provides adequate notice of what is prohibited. The disposition by the Ninth Circuit was to affirm the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. View "MAPLEBEAR INC. V. CITY OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

Richard and Lucia Parks, along with their family real estate business Parks Diversified, L.P. and related entities, became involved in a legal dispute after their son, David Klein, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on behalf of Parks Diversified. The Parkses asserted that Klein did not have the authority to file the petition and claimed he did so as part of a scheme to take control of family assets. Despite these objections, the parties entered into a stipulation to dismiss the bankruptcy case, with the Parkses waiving certain claims. Later, the Parkses and their entities filed a complaint in California state court against Klein and others, alleging various causes of action related to the alleged unauthorized bankruptcy filing.Following this, the law firm representing some of the defendants requested the bankruptcy court to reopen the case, and the state court complaint was removed to the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim and granted special motions to strike. On appeal, the United States District Court for the Central District of California found that the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, holding that the issue of corporate authority to file a bankruptcy petition was not jurisdictional. The district court remanded with instructions to vacate orders where jurisdiction was lacking and to remand remaining claims to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that, consistent with precedents from the Second and Third Circuits, a lack of corporate authority to file a bankruptcy petition does not deprive the bankruptcy court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that while proper authorization is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional, and thus affirmed the lower court’s conclusion on this point. View "TALON DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS INC. V. BECKER" on Justia Law

A former ship captain was prosecuted after a fire broke out on his vessel, resulting in the deaths of thirty-four passengers and crew members. The ship, used for recreational diving, had multiple fire safety features and regulatory requirements, including the need for a roving night patrol and crew training in fire response. The captain had extensive maritime experience, but his crew was relatively inexperienced and had not been adequately trained in emergency procedures. On the night of the incident, no one was assigned to patrol for fires, and when the fire was discovered, the crew was unprepared to respond effectively. The captain contacted the Coast Guard but did not use the ship’s public address system to warn those below deck or attempt a rescue, ultimately abandoning ship along with other crew members. All individuals below deck died from smoke inhalation and asphyxiation.The United States District Court for the Central District of California presided over the initial criminal case. The first indictment tracked the language of the seaman’s manslaughter statute but was dismissed by the district court for not alleging gross negligence, which the court believed was required based on prior interpretations of a different manslaughter statute. The government reindicted, alleging gross negligence, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury was instructed that conviction could follow if the captain engaged in “misconduct and/or acted with gross negligence.” The jury found the captain guilty.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the seaman’s manslaughter statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1115, requires only ordinary negligence, not gross negligence. The court further concluded that, even if the jury instruction’s use of “misconduct” was erroneous, any such error was harmless because the instructions repeatedly referenced the higher gross negligence standard, the prosecution did not argue for a lower standard, and overwhelming evidence supported the conviction. The judgment was affirmed. View "USA V. BOYLAN" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge brought by an environmental non-profit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relating to the agency’s 2016 national recommendations for allowable cadmium levels in water. The EPA, as required by the Clean Water Act (CWA), periodically issues nonbinding criteria for water pollutants, which states typically adopt as standards for their own waters. In 2016, the EPA updated its cadmium recommendations but did so without consulting the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, as mandated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for actions that may affect protected species.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona found that the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) had standing to challenge the EPA’s failure to consult. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CBD, holding that the EPA’s issuance of the cadmium recommendations constituted “agency action” under the ESA that “may affect” listed species, thus triggering the consultation requirement. The court vacated the less stringent chronic freshwater cadmium recommendation and remanded all four 2016 cadmium recommendations to the EPA for proper consultation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that CBD had Article III standing, finding a concrete injury to its members’ interests in protected species, that the injury was fairly traceable to EPA’s recommendations due to predictable state adoption, and that the injury could be redressed by stricter recommendations resulting from consultation. On the merits, the court concluded that EPA’s publication of nationwide recommendations was “agency action” under the ESA and that such action “may affect” listed species, thus requiring prior consultation with the Services. The district court’s vacatur and remand were affirmed. View "CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY" on Justia Law

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) introduced new and revised air traffic procedures in the Southern California Metroplex as part of its Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) initiative in 2016, affecting airports including Los Angeles International Airport. These procedures, specifically the HUULL, IRNMN, and RYDRR routes, relied on satellite navigation and were subject to an environmental review, which concluded there would be no significant noise impacts. In 2018, the FAA amended these procedures, making minor changes to altitude and speed restrictions at certain waypoints, with no changes to flight paths, number of flights, or aircraft types. Only one amended waypoint affected Malibu, and none affected Culver City.Previously, Culver City and other parties challenged the FAA’s 2016 approval in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld the FAA’s decision. After the 2018 amendments, the City of Los Angeles and Culver City (as intervenor) challenged the FAA’s actions in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found violations of environmental statutes but remanded for further review without vacating the procedures. The FAA then conducted additional environmental consultations and issued a Record of Decision, concluding the amendments qualified for a categorical exclusion from further environmental review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the petitions from Malibu and Culver City regarding the FAA’s 2018 amendments. The court held that only challenges to the 2018 amendments were timely, dismissing any challenge to the original 2016 procedures as untimely. The court determined that neither city demonstrated standing to challenge the 2018 amendments: Malibu’s evidence addressed only the 2016 procedures, and Culver City failed to provide evidence of injury. The petitions were dismissed for lack of standing. View "City of Culver City v. Federal Aviation Administration" on Justia Law

A middle school student with significant mental health needs struggled academically and emotionally while enrolled in a public school district during the COVID-19 pandemic, when instruction was provided virtually. His parents, finding that the school’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) was inadequate to address his needs during this period, placed him in two successive out-of-state private residential treatment centers offering in-person education and mental health services. Throughout this time, the parents participated in several meetings with the district’s IEP Team and communicated their concerns about the insufficiency of the educational program provided.Afterward, the parents sought reimbursement from the school district for the costs associated with the residential placements, arguing that the district failed to offer their child a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied their claim, concluding that the district had no duty to offer a FAPE during the relevant period because the parents had not expressly requested a new IEP document, and instead, had only requested IEP meetings. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California affirmed this determination, also reasoning that the parents’ requests for meetings did not obligate the district to develop or offer a new IEP.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under both federal and California law, the purpose of an IEP meeting is to develop or revise an IEP that offers a FAPE. The court concluded that it was irrelevant whether the parents had requested an IEP “meeting” or an IEP “document,” and that participation in IEP meetings triggered the district’s ongoing obligation to offer a FAPE. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the IEP offered satisfied the IDEA’s requirements and, if not, whether the student was entitled to reimbursement or other remedies. View "L.B. V. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT" on Justia Law