Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Living constitutionalismOriginalism
Partial concurrence in Nordyke [0] endorses historical understanding of Second Amendment rights consistent with Heller's originalist framework. Nordyke v. King ↗
PurposivismTextualism
CERCLA opinion in Hearthside [1] resolves owner-operator timing via statutory text and structure on a question of first impression. California Department of Toxic S… ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
Haile [3] scrutinizes BIA eligibility findings without deference on statutory asylum criteria, indicating skepticism toward agency power. Haile v. Holder ↗
The case involved California consumers who bought or leased Acura RL vehicles with an optional Collision Mitigation Braking System, alleging that Honda’s advertisements and brochures misrepresented the system’s ability to prevent or reduce collisions and omitted key limitations, in violation of California’s unfair competition, false advertising, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act laws. The district court certified a nationwide class of all such purchasers or lessees over a three-year period. The Ninth Circuit vacated the certification order, holding that common issues of law did not predominate because material differences existed between California consumer-protection statutes and those of the other 43 states where class members bought vehicles, requiring application of each state’s own laws under choice-of-law rules. The court further held that common issues of fact did not predominate, because class members could not be presumed to have seen or relied on the allegedly misleading advertisements without individualized proof of exposure.
In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., three non-California residents who worked as Oracle instructors sued the company, alleging they were entitled to overtime pay under California’s Labor Code and Business and Professions Code § 17200 for work performed partly in California, after Oracle classified them as exempt “teachers”; they also sought to apply § 17200 to alleged FLSA violations for work performed nationwide. The district court granted summary judgment to Oracle on all claims, finding California law inapplicable. On appeal, after the Ninth Circuit certified questions to the California Supreme Court, the court reversed on the first two claims concerning work inside California and affirmed on the third claim concerning work outside the state. It held that California’s overtime rules could apply because Oracle’s headquarters and the classification decisions were in California and the relevant work occurred there, creating sufficient state contacts, while § 17200 does not reach out-of-state work based solely on FLSA violations for nonresidents.
In United States v. Reyes, the Ninth Circuit addressed the second criminal conviction of Gregory Reyes, former CEO of Brocade Communications, on charges of securities fraud, making false SEC filings, falsifying corporate books and records, and making false statements to auditors. The charges arose from Reyes’s approval of backdated stock options granted to employees between 2000 and 2004, which were not properly recorded as non-cash compensation expenses under then-applicable accounting rules (APB 25), resulting in overstated net income and understated losses in the company’s financial statements and SEC filings. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find the misstatements material to investors, that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred regarding references to proxy voting or financial restatements, and that the district court properly instructed the jury on materiality under Basic v. Levinson and related precedents without prejudicial evidentiary or instructional errors.
In Haile v. Holder, an Eritrean citizen who entered the U.S. in 1999 and overstayed her visa sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection after removal proceedings began. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the first two forms of relief, finding her statutorily ineligible under terrorism bars because she had joined the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) in 1977, raised funds, collected and forwarded documents for the group, and organized women, while the ELF had committed documented acts such as hijackings and bombings. The Ninth Circuit upheld those determinations, holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusions that the ELF was a terrorist organization and that Haile had engaged in terrorist activities, and it dismissed or denied the related claims for lack of jurisdiction or exhaustion. However, the court granted deferral of removal under the CAT, concluding that the record compelled a finding that Haile was more likely than not to face torture by or with the acquiescence of the Eritrean government if returned.
The case involved Hershel Rosenbaum, who was arrested by Washoe County officers while selling free promotional radio station tickets outside a fair with his young children present; he was charged with child endangerment and obtaining money under false pretenses, though no such violations occurred under Nevada law and all charges were later dropped. Rosenbaum and his children sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an unlawful arrest in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment right to family integrity due to officers' comments to the children. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds. The Ninth Circuit reversed on the unlawful arrest claim, holding that the officer lacked probable cause and that qualified immunity could not be based on a statute discovered only after the arrest, and affirmed on the family integrity claim, concluding that the officers' conduct did not shock the conscience. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the arrest claim.
The case involved property owners Hinds Investments suing manufacturers of dry cleaning equipment under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and other laws, alleging that the manufacturers contributed to groundwater contamination by perchloroethylene (PCE) through the design of machines that produced hazardous waste and instructions for their use at dry cleaning stores. The district court dismissed the RCRA claims, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held that RCRA liability for 'contributing to' the handling or disposal of hazardous waste requires active involvement or a measure of control over the waste at the time of disposal, which was not alleged here since the manufacturers' role was limited to passive design and instruction. The opinion distinguished cases where defendants had authority or ongoing control over waste practices and rejected liability based solely on equipment design that others misused.