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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiracy to manufacture, possess, and distribute marijuana, as well as other charges related to his ownership of a marijuana dispensary in California. The panel held that defendant suffered no wrongful impairment of his entrapment by estoppel defense, the anti-nullification warning was not coercive, and the district court's evidentiary rulings were correct in light of the purposes for which the evidence was tendered.The panel remanded for resentencing on the government's cross-appeal of the district court's refusal to apply a five-year mandatory minimum sentence, which unavoidably applied to defendant. The panel need not reach the question of whether an appropriations provision, which the panel interpreted as prohibiting the federal prosecution of persons for activities compliant with state medical marijuana laws, operates to annul a properly obtained conviction, however, because a genuine dispute exists as to whether defendant's activities were actually legal under California state law. The panel remanded for the district court to make findings regarding whether defendant complied with state law. View "United States v. Lynch" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. In this case, defendant's sentence was imposed in 2000 under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, based in part on the district court's conclusion that he had previously been convicted of crimes of violence.The panel held that the motion was untimely under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(3), which authorizes filing within one year of "the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review." Although defendant argued that the Supreme Court recognized a new right in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the Supreme Court has not yet recognized such a right. Because the Supreme has not held that the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines are subject to this vagueness challenge, defendant's motion was not timely under the statute. The panel also denied a similar challenge by defendant to a conviction and sentence for use of a firearm during a crime of violence because the Supreme Court has not recognized that right. View "United States v. Blackstone" on Justia Law

The DNC and others filed suit against the state of Arizona, challenging two state election practices: (1) Arizona's longstanding requirement that in-person voters cast their ballots in their assigned precinct, which Arizona enforces by not counting ballots cast in the wrong precinct (OOP policy), and (2) H.B. 2023, a recent legislative enactment which precludes most third parties from collecting early ballots from voters.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the district court did not err in holding that H.B. 2023 and the OOP policy did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments because they imposed only a minimal burden on voters and were adequately designed to serve Arizona's important regulatory interests; the district court did not err in holding that H.B. 2023 and the OOP policy did not violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; DNC failed to show that minority voters were deprived of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice; and the district court did not err in holding that H.B. 2023 did not violate the Fifteenth Amendment because plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of showing that H.B. 2023 was enacted with discriminatory intent. View "The Democratic National Committee v. Reagan" on Justia Law

Oregon's restrictions on the use of motorized mining equipment in rivers and streams containing essential salmon habitat, adopted into law as Senate Bill 3, were not preempted by federal law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the state, and held, assuming without deciding that federal law preempts the extension of state land use plans onto unpatented mining claims on federal lands, Senate Bill 3 was not preempted because it constituted an environmental regulation, not a state land use planning law. Moreover, Senate Bill 3 did not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. View "Bohmker v. Oregon" on Justia Law

California Attorney General's Form 990 Schedule B requirement, which obligates charities to submit the very information they already file each year with the IRS, survived exacting scrutiny as applied to plaintiffs because it was substantially related to an important state interest in policing charitable fraud. The Ninth Circuit held that, even assuming arguendo that plaintiffs' contributors would face substantial harassment if Schedule B information became public, the strength of the state's interest in collecting Schedule B information reflected the actual burden on First Amendment rights because the information was collected solely for nonpublic use, and the risk of inadvertent public disclosure was slight. Accordingly, the panel vacated the district court's permanent injunctions, reversed the bench trial judgments, and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the California Attorney General. View "Americans for Prosperity v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's California conviction for second degree murder. The panel held that the state court unreasonably applied Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and related cases in holding that a detective ceased interrogation and that petitioner's waiver of the right of counsel was valid. In this case, the only reasonable interpretation of what occurred between petitioner and the interrogating detective was that the detective continued interrogating petitioner after petitioner had clearly – and repeatedly – invoked his right to counsel, and that the detective badgered petitioner into waiving that right. View "Martinez v. Cate" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Paramount in an action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. AFM filed suit alleging breach of Article 3 of the Basic Theatrical Motion Picture Agreement, a collective bargaining agreement, in connection with the motion picture, Same Kind of Different As Me, which was scored in Slovakia.The panel held that the district court misinterpreted Article 3 to apply only if a signatory producer employs the cast and crew shooting the picture; Article 3 functions as a work preservation provision that dictates when a signatory has to hire those musicians; and Article 3 applied when a signatory studio produces a motion picture and has authority over the hiring and employment of scoring musicians. The panel held that there was a disputed question of fact as to whether Paramount produced the movie and had sufficient authority over the hiring of scoring musicians such that Article 3 applied. Finally, the panel rejected Paramount's affirmative defense that Article 3 violated the National Labor Relations Act's "hot cargo" prohibition and reversed two of the district court's evidentiary rulings. View "American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada v. Paramount Pictures Corp." on Justia Law

The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 does not preempt the California Labor Commissioner's use of a common law test, the Borello standard, to determine whether a motor carrier has properly classified its drivers as independent contractors. The Ninth Circuit held that the Borello standard, a generally applicable test used in a traditional area of state regulation, was not "related to" prices, routes, or services, and therefore was not preempted. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief of the Commissioner's use of the test. View "California Trucking Association v. Su" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to an IRS agent who violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy when, during the lawful execution of a search warrant at plaintiff's home, the agent escorted plaintiff to the bathroom and monitored her while she relieved herself. Weighing the scope, manner, justification, and place of the search, the panel held that a reasonable jury could conclude that the agent's actions were unreasonable and violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, the agent's general interests in preventing destruction of evidence and promoting officer safety did not justify the scope or manner of the intrusion into plaintiff's most basic subject of privacy, her naked body. The panel also held that the law was clearly established at the time of the agent's actions. A reasonable officer in the agent's position would have known that such a significant intrusion into bodily privacy, in the absence of legitimate government justification, was unlawful. Accordingly, the agent was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Ioane v. Hodges" on Justia Law

The summary arrest, handcuffing, and police transport to the station of middle school girls was a disproportionate response to the school's need, which was dissipation of what the school officials characterized as an "ongoing feud" and "continuous argument" between the students. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to defendants based on qualified immunity and grant of summary judgment for students in an action alleging that a sheriff's deputy arrested the students on campus without probable cause in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and state law. In this case, the deputy was invited to speak to a group of girls in school about bullying and fighting. When the girls were unresponsive and disrespectful, the deputy arrested the girls.The panel applied the two-part reasonableness test set forth in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 333 (1985), holding that the arrests were unreasonable because they were not justified at their inception nor reasonably related in scope to the circumstances; officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable officer could have reasonably believed that the law authorized the arrest of a group of middle schoolers in order to teach them a lesson or to prove a point; and the evidence was insufficient to create probable cause to arrest the students for violating California Penal Code 415(1) or Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 601(a), and thus plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their state false arrest claim. View "Scott v. County of San Bernardino" on Justia Law