Harry Pregerson

Zhanling Jiang, a native of China, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld an immigration judge’s denial of his application to adjust status as the unmarried son of a U.S. citizen, along with related claims for asylum and other relief. The immigration judge had rejected two Chinese government documents proving Jiang was single because they lacked U.S. consular authentication under 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 and had denied a continuance to obtain that authentication. The court held that the agency erred: foreign documents in immigration proceedings may be authenticated by any recognized method, including the petitioner’s own testimony, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44(a)(2) permits an attested summary without final certification. It further found the denial of a continuance unreasonable because Jiang received no advance notice that only consular certification would suffice and promptly obtained the certification once the stricter requirement was announced. The Ninth Circuit therefore granted the petition as to the adjustment-of-status claim and remanded for further proceedings, without reaching Jiang’s other claims.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved Santiago Lopez, a rehabilitated former drug addict, who sued Pacific Maritime Association under the ADA and California's FEHA after PMA's "one-strike" policy permanently barred him from longshore work for testing positive on a pre-employment drug screen in 1997; he had reapplied in 2004 after achieving sobriety but was rejected without exception. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for PMA, rejecting both the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims. On disparate treatment, the court held that the uniformly applied policy did not single out rehabilitated addicts or reflect intentional discrimination. On disparate impact, the court ruled that Lopez had not presented statistical evidence demonstrating that the policy disproportionately screened out rehabilitated addicts relative to other applicants, and that such evidence is required to establish a prima facie case.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Abdullah al-Kidd suing former Attorney General John Ashcroft over claims that Ashcroft's policies led to al-Kidd's detention under a material witness warrant without probable cause for criminal charges. The Ninth Circuit, acting on remand from the Supreme Court, reversed the district court's denial of Ashcroft's motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The reversal followed directly from the Supreme Court's opinion in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, which held that the Attorney General was entitled to qualified immunity. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with that Supreme Court decision.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Christian student fraternities and sororities at San Diego State University that required members to affirm Christian beliefs, challenging the university's nondiscrimination policy that conditioned official recognition on allowing all students to join regardless of religion, sexual orientation, or other protected categories. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Ninth Circuit held that the narrower nondiscrimination policy was constitutional because it was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum and did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The court further concluded that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the policy had been selectively enforced against them in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

In United States v. Ewing, the defendant was charged with counterfeiting currency under federal law after an officer stopped a vehicle with an expired registration, learned that a passenger was on parole subject to search conditions, observed folded bills partially hidden in the door weatherstripping, and unfolded them to reveal matching serial numbers indicating they were counterfeit. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer lacked probable cause for the search and examination in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the totality of circumstances—including the parole status, the suspicious hiding of the bills, and the officer's experience with drug-related concealment—established probable cause to search the car for contraband. The court further reasoned that unfolding the bills did not require separate probable cause because they fell within the scope of the justified search for evidence of criminal activity.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Zhi Yong Guo, a Chinese national, who was convicted by a jury of knowingly and willfully conspiring to export and attempting to export ten thermal imaging cameras to China without obtaining the required license from the Department of Commerce, in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1705. Guo appealed, contending that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and thus violated due process. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute and its detailed implementing export regulations, considered together, provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and allow for principled enforcement. The court further noted that the statute's scienter requirement, which obligates the government to prove the defendant knew a license was needed and intended to violate the law, alleviates vagueness concerns.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involved a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper against Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act through discharges of polluted stormwater from municipal storm sewer systems into four rivers, exceeding limits in the applicable NPDES permit. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, finding insufficient evidence linking the defendants' systems to the exceedances. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed as to the District for the Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River, holding that monitoring data from stations within the District's controlled system showed pollutants passing through and discharging into those rivers. The court affirmed summary judgment for the District on the Santa Clara River and Malibu Creek claims, and for the County on all claims, due to lack of evidence tracing stormwater from the defendants' systems to the exceedances at the monitoring points.

environmentfederal power

The case involved Santiago Lopez, a recovering drug addict, who sued Pacific Maritime Association after being permanently disqualified from longshore employment under its "one-strike" rule for failing a pre-employment drug test due to past addiction. Lopez claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination under the ADA and FEHA, which protect rehabilitated drug addicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the rule is facially neutral as it disqualifies anyone who fails the test regardless of addiction status, and Lopez failed to provide statistical evidence of disparate impact on recovering addicts.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved the federal government's appeal of a district court's dismissal of an indictment charging Dante Kenyon Anderson with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court had ruled that Anderson's two prior California felony convictions, which resulted from nolo contendere pleas, did not qualify as predicate convictions because they did not establish guilt. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the federal statute defers to state law on the definition of a conviction and that California Penal Code section 1016(3) expressly gives nolo contendere pleas to felonies the same legal effect as guilty pleas. The court concluded that either prior conviction was therefore sufficient to support the federal charge and remanded for further proceedings.

gunscriminal law

The case involved Jose Pedroza, an employee at National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, who sought benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act for psychological injuries he attributed to a workplace accident and subsequent personnel actions by his employer, including warnings, performance reviews, and eventual demotion. The Benefits Review Board denied benefits, finding that the injuries stemmed from legitimate personnel decisions rather than the accident itself. On petition for review, the Ninth Circuit held that psychological injuries caused by legitimate personnel actions are not compensable under the Act. The court reasoned that the statute's text and policy, as interpreted in prior BRB decisions, distinguish such injuries from those arising out of employment conditions, while maintaining the no-fault framework and balancing employer-employee interests. It therefore affirmed the denial of benefits.

labor & employment

This case involved Compton Unified School District appealing a district court ruling that affirmed an administrative decision in favor of student Starvenia Addison. Addison claimed the district violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by failing to identify her learning disabilities and provide special education services despite her poor academic performance, behavioral issues, and recommendations for assessment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Addison, holding that the district had a 'child find' duty under 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A) to locate and evaluate children with disabilities in need of services. The court reasoned that the district received clear indicators of disability but delayed assessment until after the mother's explicit request, entitling Addison to compensatory education.

civil rightsfederal power

Susan Barker, a special education teacher employed by the Riverside County Office of Education, alleged that her supervisors retaliated against her after she voiced concerns and filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights about the office's failure to provide disabled students with a free appropriate public education as required by federal and state law. The retaliation included intimidation, exclusion from meetings, altered work assignments, and reduced caseload, leading to her constructive termination in 2006. Barker sued under the anti-retaliation provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA, but the district court dismissed the case for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that Barker satisfied standing requirements by alleging an actual injury traceable to the employer's conduct and redressable through compensatory damages, as the statutes protect individuals advocating for disabled students' rights.

civil rightslabor & employment

Jose Pedroza, an employee of National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, petitioned for review of a Benefits Review Board decision denying him benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act for psychological injuries. Both the ALJ and BRB found that Pedroza’s depression and anxiety stemmed from legitimate personnel actions by his employer, including reprimands, warnings, and a demotion following a 1999 workplace accident and subsequent performance issues, rather than from the accident itself or general working conditions. The court addressed whether psychological injuries resulting from such legitimate, good-faith personnel decisions are compensable under the Act and answered in the negative. Relying on precedents such as Marino and Sewell, the court held that these injuries do not arise from working conditions that Congress intended to cover, and therefore affirmed the BRB’s denial of benefits.

labor & employment

The case involved Manuel Calderon-Espinosa, who pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien found in the United States after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He appealed his 24-month sentence, arguing error in the district court's calculation of his criminal history score under the Sentencing Guidelines by adding a point for his 2004 California conviction for loitering for drug activities and another for a 2007 unlicensed driving conviction. The Ninth Circuit held that U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(2) plainly excludes all loitering offenses, by whatever name known, from criminal history calculations, so the district court erred in counting the loitering conviction. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, as the error raised the criminal history category and sentence length under the plea agreement, but did not reach the second argument since it would not further reduce the sentence.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Hammons, the defendant was sentenced to ten months in prison after his supervised release was revoked based on a DUI conviction, despite the probation office recommending a residential reentry program instead of incarceration. The Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court committed plain error by failing to state any reasons for the sentence, failing to calculate the correct guidelines range (which was misstated due to an incorrect Criminal History Category), and failing to address the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 and 3583. The court reasoned that these omissions affected the defendant's substantial rights and undermined the fairness of the proceedings, particularly given uncertainty about whether the sentence aligned with the proper range of four to ten months.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between United National Insurance and Spectrum Worldwide over whether United's excess insurance policy covered Spectrum's liability in a trade dress infringement lawsuit brought by Sunset Health Products. The court decided that the policy's "first publication" exclusion applied to the infringement claims, barring coverage because the infringing material was first published before the policy's effective date. The court also applied judicial estoppel to prevent Spectrum from arguing otherwise, as that position contradicted their successful argument in the underlying infringement case. Additionally, the court upheld the district court's decision holding two individuals jointly and severally liable for repaying United's settlement contribution.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Williams v. Gerber Products Co., parents of toddlers filed a class action alleging that Gerber deceptively marketed its Fruit Juice Snacks by using images of fruits like oranges and strawberries, along with claims such as 'made with real fruit juice and other all natural ingredients' and 'nutritious,' when the product actually contained primarily corn syrup and sugar with only white grape juice from concentrate and none from the pictured fruits. The district court granted Gerber's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that the packaging was not likely to deceive a reasonable consumer given the ingredient list on the side panel. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint stated viable claims under California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act because reasonable consumers expect packaging representations to be accurate and the ingredient list to confirm rather than correct misleading statements. The court found that the overall context of the packaging could support a finding of deception and declined to treat the 'nutritious' claim as non-actionable puffery in that context.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Qi Cui, a Chinese citizen who overstayed her visa, sought withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture based on a claimed coerced abortion under China's one-child policy. After conceding removability, her application was pretermitted when the immigration judge denied a continuance to allow her to resubmit fingerprints for a background check, citing an ambiguous timing rule of which she had received no prior notice or warning about the consequences. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and held that the IJ erred by faulting Cui for delays mostly caused by government requests and the court's own schedule, while failing to provide adequate guidance on the fingerprint requirement. The court therefore granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings.

immigrationprocedure

The case concerned a Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor, Laura Kagenveama, whose Form B22C showed negative disposable income after applying the means test for an above-median debtor. The Chapter 13 trustee appealed the confirmation of her plan, arguing that she should be required to extend payments over the five-year applicable commitment period under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(4) even though her projected disposable income was negative. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court, holding that the statutory term "projected disposable income" refers to the debtor's disposable income under § 1325(b)(2) multiplied over the commitment period, and that the five-year period applies only when that figure is positive. The court reasoned from the plain language of the statute that a negative projected disposable income eliminates any requirement for a longer plan term, allowing the debtor's voluntarily proposed three-year plan to stand.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether California could impose sales taxes on non-Indian contractors purchasing construction materials for a casino expansion on the Barona Band of Mission Indians' reservation. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Tribe, holding that the state tax was not preempted. The court reasoned that although the legal incidence of the tax fell on the non-Indian subcontractor, under the Bracker balancing test, the Tribe's strategy to market a tax exemption to avoid the tax did not outweigh California's interest in collecting general revenue. The Tribe's contractual arrangements to shift title transfer to tribal land were seen as an attempt to circumvent the tax without sufficient tribal interest to preempt state authority.

taxesfederal powerbusiness & regulatory