Mary Murphy Schroeder

The case concerned a group of farmers and their businesses who sued their health insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, after experiencing large premium increases that they alleged violated Montana’s little HIPAA statute prohibiting different premiums for similarly situated individuals based on health status-related factors, as well as a separate state unfair insurance practices law. The Ninth Circuit addressed whether federal HIPAA and ERISA preempted the state claims, both for purposes of federal jurisdiction and on the merits. The court held that the federal law completely preempted the Montana little HIPAA provision because the state statute was identical to and expressly relied on federal law, thereby conferring federal jurisdiction and defeating that claim. However, it determined that the separate state unfair insurance practices statute was not preempted, as the two laws were not identical in scope, and remanded that claim along with a related breach of contract claim for further proceedings in the district court.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by a Wiccan volunteer chaplain, Patrick McCollum, and several California prison inmates to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's paid chaplaincy program, which employs clergy only from Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Native American faiths while using volunteers for other religions. The plaintiffs claimed the program violated inmates' religious exercise rights under the First Amendment, RLUIPA, and related state laws. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants. Inmate claims were rejected for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or because they were untimely, while McCollum's claims failed because RLUIPA protects only confined persons and he presented insufficient evidence of retaliation. The court applied established standards requiring reasonable religious accommodations consistent with prison security and operations.

religious libertycivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Merced Melchor-Meceno, who pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry into the United States after prior deportations in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court applied a 16-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based on his prior Colorado felony menacing conviction, treating it as a crime of violence, and imposed a 75-month prison term. On appeal, Melchor-Meceno argued that the menacing conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Colorado's felony menacing statute is categorically a crime of violence because it requires knowingly using or threatening a deadly weapon to place another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, which satisfies the elements of active violent force and intent under the guidelines. The court did not need to reach the modified categorical approach.

immigrationcriminal law

This case involved a lawsuit by Northstar Financial Advisors against Schwab Investments and its management company, alleging that Schwab violated section 13(a) of the Investment Company Act by changing its investment policies without obtaining shareholder approval. The district court held that investors have a private right to sue under this provision, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The appeals court reasoned that neither the language of the statute, its structure, nor its legislative history—including later amendments—shows any congressional intent to create a private cause of action, leaving enforcement solely to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The court followed precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit requiring clear evidence of such intent for implied private rights.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Reyes-Bosque, Emilio Reyes-Bosque and Jose Luis Ramirez-Esqueda were convicted of multiple federal offenses involving the smuggling, transportation, and harboring of illegal aliens, including violations of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1327, and they appealed the district court's denial of their motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of two residential units used as stash houses. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the defendants lacked standing to challenge certain searches and that the agents' entries and investigations were supported by consent, exigent circumstances, and plain-view observations following tips from escaped aliens. The court also rejected Reyes-Bosque's additional challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, admission of hearsay, and denial of his request for new counsel, finding no error in the district court's rulings. The core reasoning centered on Fourth Amendment standards for warrantless entries in immigration enforcement contexts and the corroboration of witness testimony with physical evidence like ledgers and phone records.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

Nadeem Hassan, a Pakistani citizen present in the United States, applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255; while the application was pending he obtained advance parole to travel abroad, but the government denied the adjustment application on national security grounds, revoked the parole, and removed him upon his attempted return. Hassan amended his pending mandamus complaint to challenge the denial and revocation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) expressly bars judicial review of discretionary decisions regarding adjustment of status and parole, and that Hassan had not raised a colorable constitutional due-process claim because he had been questioned about his associations and given an opportunity to respond.

immigrationfederal power

This case involved a challenge by conventional alfalfa seed farms and environmental organizations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's approval of genetically modified "Roundup Ready" alfalfa without preparing an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. The district court issued an injunction prohibiting further planting of the modified alfalfa until the agency completed the required environmental review, citing risks of cross-pollination with conventional varieties. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the relief after conducting hearings on the NEPA violation and the appropriate scope of the injunction. The court reviewed the decision under an abuse of discretion standard and found the injunction justified to prevent potential environmental harm pending full compliance with federal environmental law.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the conviction of Jack Easterday under 26 U.S.C. § 7202 for willful failure to pay over more than $18 million in employee payroll taxes withheld by his nursing home companies between 1998 and 2005. Easterday requested a jury instruction based on a 1975 Ninth Circuit precedent allowing him to argue that his nonpayment was not willful because the companies lacked funds after paying other business expenses, but the district court refused and he was sentenced to 30 months in prison. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the earlier precedent was no longer good law after Supreme Court decisions clarified that willfulness in tax statutes means only a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, without any requirement that the government prove the defendant had the ability to pay or acted with evil motive. The court reasoned that if a taxpayer knows taxes are owed and fails to pay them, the conduct is willful regardless of other expenditures.

criminal lawtaxes

This case was a facial challenge by business and civil-rights groups to Arizona's Legal Arizona Workers Act, which requires employers to use the federal E-Verify system and imposes sanctions including revocation of business licenses for knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the Act was not preempted by federal immigration statutes (IRCA and IIRIRA). The court reasoned that the Act qualifies as a licensing law expressly saved from preemption under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2), that mandatory E-Verify use does not create implied conflict preemption, and that the statute can be interpreted to provide employers an opportunity to rebut federal work-authorization determinations in state proceedings, satisfying due process. The decision emphasized that it addressed only the facial validity of the un-enforced statute.

immigrationfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and Citizens Telecommunications Co. over changes to retiree medical benefits under their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) from 2004-2008. IBEW filed a grievance alleging that Citizens' cancellation of certain benefits for Medicare-eligible retirees violated the CBA's provision against reducing overall benefit levels and sought expedited arbitration under Article 24.1. Citizens refused to arbitrate Grievance 5-08, arguing that the union lacked authority to represent retirees without their consent. The district court granted IBEW's motion to compel arbitration, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the CBA's plain language imposed a duty to arbitrate the dispute over benefit reductions and that no retiree consent was required for the union to pursue arbitration of the contract claim.

labor & employment

This case involved a facial challenge by business and civil-rights organizations to Arizona's Legal Arizona Workers Act, which sanctions employers who hire unauthorized aliens primarily by revoking state business licenses. Plaintiffs alleged the Act was expressly and impliedly preempted by federal laws including IRCA and IIRIRA, and that it violated due process by denying employers a chance to challenge federal work-authorization determinations before sanctions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that the Act was not preempted, holding it qualified as a permissible licensing law under the federal savings clause and that requiring use of the E-Verify system was neither expressly nor impliedly preempted. The court further ruled that the statute could reasonably be interpreted to allow employers an opportunity during state court proceedings to present rebuttal evidence against a presumption of unauthorized status, satisfying due process on its face. The decision upheld the law against the facial challenge while noting that as-applied challenges could arise upon actual enforcement.

immigrationfederal powerbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

Nadeem Hassan, a Pakistani citizen in the United States, applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident and later traveled abroad under advance parole while the application was pending; the government denied the application, revoked the parole, and removed him upon his return attempt. He sued in district court seeking mandamus relief and challenging those actions. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) to review the discretionary denial of adjustment of status or revocation of advance parole. The court further concluded that statutory exceptions for constitutional claims or legal questions did not apply because the case was not brought via a petition for review in the court of appeals, and the revocation was authorized by regulation once the adjustment application was denied.

immigration

This case involved a challenge by conventional alfalfa seed producers and environmental organizations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup Ready alfalfa without first preparing an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. The district court found a NEPA violation and issued a preliminary injunction barring further planting of the alfalfa until the agency completed the required review. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion after conducting multiple hearings and reviewing extensive evidence on the scope of relief. The court noted that the injunction was temporary and tied directly to the completion of the environmental review, with the underlying NEPA violation undisputed by the parties. A dissent argued that an evidentiary hearing should have been required before entering the nationwide injunction.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Jack Easterday's conviction for willful failure to pay over employee payroll taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202, stemming from his nursing home companies' repeated nonpayment of over $18 million in taxes between 1998 and 2005 despite accurate filings and IRS notices. Easterday sought a jury instruction, based on prior Ninth Circuit precedent in United States v. Poll, requiring the government to prove he had sufficient funds available at the time taxes were due to establish willfulness, arguing he had used the money for other business expenses. The district court refused the instruction, and Easterday was convicted and sentenced to 30 months. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Poll was no longer good law after Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Pomponio and Cheek v. United States, which defined willfulness in tax cases as a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty without any requirement to prove ability to pay or evil motive.

criminal lawtaxes

This case involved a Mexican citizen subject to an expedited removal order in 1999 after she falsely claimed U.S. citizenship at the border while attempting reentry. After unlawfully returning and later applying for adjustment of status based on her marriage to a lawful permanent resident, the prior order was reinstated, resulting in her removal; she then filed a habeas petition challenging the reinstatement and underlying order on due process grounds due to the summary nature of the proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the expedited removal order or the due process claims. The core reasoning was that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) expressly divests courts of authority to review such orders, even where hardships or alleged procedural deficiencies are asserted.

immigrationprocedure

In this trademark infringement case, Philips sued KXD Technology and related defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit products bearing Philips's marks, leading to temporary restraining orders, seizure orders, and a preliminary injunction requiring compliance reports. When defendants failed to comply, the district court held them in civil contempt and imposed sanctions including attorney's fees, lost royalties, daily fines, and a bond. The defendants appealed the sanctions order, but the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because civil contempt sanctions against parties to ongoing litigation are not appealable until final judgment. The court reasoned that the sanctions were civil in nature—intended to coerce compliance and compensate the plaintiff—rather than criminal and punitive, distinguishing them from immediately appealable orders.

procedure

The case involved Julio Almazan-Becerra, convicted of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and whether his prior California conviction under Health and Safety Code § 11360(a) qualified for a 16-level sentencing enhancement as a drug trafficking offense. The district court applied the enhancement after using the modified categorical approach and relying on police reports that Almazan-Becerra had stipulated contained a factual basis for his guilty plea to selling marijuana. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the enhancement and the resulting 57-month sentence, holding that the stipulated documents established the prior offense involved sales rather than transportation for personal use and that the sentence was reasonable.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involves appeals by the Navajo Nation and other tribes, along with environmental organizations, challenging decisions by the United States Forest Service regarding the Coconino National Forest and the Arizona Snowbowl Resort. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the case be reheard en banc by the full court after a vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges. As a result, the prior three-judge panel opinion may not be cited as precedent by the court or district courts in the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court. Judges Hawkins and Bybee are recused from participation.

environmentreligious libertyfederal power

In Beltran v. Santa Clara County, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order directing that the case be reheard en banc. A majority of the court's non-recused regular active judges voted for rehearing under Circuit Rule 35-3. The order further provides that the prior three-judge panel opinion may not be cited as precedent by or to the Ninth Circuit or its district courts except to the extent the en banc court adopts it.

procedure

The case Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC concerns allegations of housing discrimination under federal fair housing laws. A three-judge panel had previously issued an opinion in the matter. Upon a majority vote of the non-recused active judges, the Ninth Circuit ordered rehearing of the case by the en banc court. The panel opinion may no longer be cited as precedent except to the extent adopted by the en banc court, and one judge is noted as recused.

civil rights