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

Plaintiff, an atheist, filed suit seeking damages and injunctive relief after he was forced as a condition of parole to participate in a residential drug treatment program that required him to acknowledge a higher power. The court held that the district judge erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on the jury's failure to award damages; in instructing the jury to determine whether liability should have been apportioned among the multiple defendants in this case; and in dismissing certain other of plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hazle, Jr. v. Crofoot, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that Congress has no power to regulate the activities contemplated by the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, Mont. Code Ann. 30-20-104, and injunctive relief preventing the federal government from bringing civil or criminal actions under federal firearms law against Montana citizens acting in compliance with the Act. The court concluded that Plaintiff Gary Marbut alleged economic injury sufficient for standing. On the merits, Congress could have rationally concluded that the manufacture of unlicensed firearms, even if initially sold only within the State of Montana, would in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate market for firearms. Under Gonzales v. Raich and United States v. Stewart, that was enough to place the rifle Marbut wished to manufacture and sell within reach of the long arm of federal law. Because the Act purported to dictate to the contrary, it was necessarily preempted and invalid. Accordingly, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. View "Mont. Shooting Sports Ass'n v. Holder" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from charges that defendant falsified a 2000 charitable organization tax return in order to conceal his support of an independence movement in Chechnya. The case involved significant amounts of classified materials and multiple in camera, ex parte reviews as well as classified proceedings. The court concluded, inter alia, that the government violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland by withholding significant impeachment evidence relevant to a central government witness; the district court erred in approving an inadequate substitution for classified material that was relevant and helpful to the defense; and the search that the government conducted of defendant's computer hard drives went beyond the explicit limitations of the warrant and the court remanded to the district court to consider the appropriate scope of items seized and whether the exclusionary rule should apply. Considering the errors both individually as well as cumulatively in light of the evidence as a whole, the court concluded that the errors were prejudicial and reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court filed concurrently a classified opinion with respect to the substitution. View "United States v. Sedaghaty" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of fifteen counts of wire fraud, eleven counts of money laundering, and three counts of tax evasion. At issue on appeal was whether the district court correctly applied U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) because his offense involved "a misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable...organization." The court concluded that, under the reasoning of United States v. Treadwell, defendant's offense fits easily within the ambit of charitable enhancement even though his scheme involved the sham sale of shares in a for-profit company; the applicability of his sentencing enhancement did not change because he purported to act in the interest of a charitable organization but not as its agent or representative; and it was not significant that defendant's investor's could have been motivated, in part, by a desire to profit personally. By presenting the investment opportunity as his means of donating to the charitable organization, defendant misrepresented that he was acting "to obtain a benefit on behalf of" the organization. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the enhancement and the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Cohen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Belarus, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA affirming an IJ's determination that she was not entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner has been deaf since infancy and claimed that her condition subjected her to persecution in Belarus. Petitioner also claimed that she suffered persecution on account of her and her family's religion (Seventh Day Adventists). The court concluded that petitioner has made a showing of past persecution on the basis of religion and that the government failed to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, petitioner was eligible for asylum on this claim. The court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rusak v. Holder" on Justia Law

Planned Parenthood and others filed suit challenging Ariz. Rev. Stat. 35-196.05(B) as a violation of the federal Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396a. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 35-196.05(B) barred patients eligible for the state's Medicaid program from obtaining covered family planning services through health care providers who performed abortions in cases other than medical necessity, rape, or incest. The court concluded that the district court's entry of final judgment and a permanent injunction mooted Arizona's appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction. Therefore, the court dismissed that appeal (Case No. 12-17558), and considered only Arizona's appeal of the summary judgment order and permanent injunction (Case No. 13-15506). The court held that the Medicaid Act's free-choice-of-provider requirement conferred a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court also held that the Arizona statute contravenes the Medicaid Act's requirement that states give Medicaid recipients a free choice of qualified provider. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment and permanent injunction. View "Planned Parenthood v. Betlach" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to violating Nev. Rev. Stat. 484C.110(3)(g), which prohibited driving with over 2ng/ml of marijuana in the blood, assimilated into federal law under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 13. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction because an applicable federal regulation punished his conduct, thereby precluding assimilation of Nevada law. The court agreed with the district court that there was a gap in federal law which could be properly filled by Nevada's per se drugged driving law where there was no indication of an overriding federal policy with which Nevada's per se drugged driving law interfered and where there was a gap in federal law with respect to punishing operators of vehicles who exceeded a per se drug limit regardless of impairment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was convicted of brandishing a firearm in the presence of the occupant of a motor vehicle, in violation of California Penal Code section 417.3. An IJ subsequently determined that petitioner's conviction was for a "crime of violence" and thereby an "aggravated felony," making petitioner statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and for asylum. The IJ denied withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief on the merits. After petitioner appealed, the BIA affirmed the IJ's conclusion but issued its own reasoned decision. Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's decision. The court dismissed the petition for review, concluding that California Penal Code section 417.3 qualified categorically as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) and, therefore, petitioner was an aggravated felon who was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3). View "Bolanos v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

After the Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, Ernst & Young filed a motion to compel arbitration of state wage and hour claims asserted by its former employee. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Ernst & Young had waived its right to arbitration by failing to assert that right as a defense in an action brought by two other former employees. The court reversed, concluding that plaintiff had not established any prejudice as a result of Ernst & Young's alleged delay in asserting its arbitral rights. View "Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the district alleging claims for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the district. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by reconsidering its prior order denying summary judgment where the district court found that it had committed clear error by not considering whether plaintiff gave a sufficient explanation for the conflict between her ADA claim and her Nevada Public Employees' Retirement Systems (PERS) application under the Supreme Court's decision in Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp. Under the standard set forth in Cleveland, the court concluded that plaintiff gave sufficient explanations for the inconsistencies between her ADA claim and her PERS and Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601, applications to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Smith v. Clark County School District" on Justia Law