Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
Invalidates portions of city and county charitable solicitation ordinances as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment after balancing government interests against speech rights [4]; applies scrutiny to municipal campaign finance restrictions [1]. Thalheimer v. City of San Diego ↗ Gospel Missions of America v. Be… ↗
The case involved An Na Peng, a legal permanent resident convicted after trial in 1996 of conspiracy to defraud the INS, a crime involving moral turpitude, who faced removal proceedings and sought waivers of inadmissibility or deportation under former INA § 212(c) and § 212(h). The Ninth Circuit held that Peng remained eligible to apply for § 212(c) relief despite IIRIRA’s repeal of that provision, but that the seven-year continuous residence requirement under § 212(h) applied to her and did not violate equal protection by treating legal permanent residents differently from non-residents. The court reasoned that pre-IIRIRA convictions after trial still permit a showing of reasonable reliance on the availability of § 212(c) relief, that the § 212(h) residency rule is not impermissibly retroactive when proceedings began after its effective date, and that Congress had a rational basis for imposing stricter requirements on legal permanent residents given their greater rights and privileges. The petition was therefore granted in part and remanded to allow Peng to pursue the § 212(c) waiver.
In United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, the defendant appealed his 46-month sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 after pleading guilty, arguing that his prior California conviction for forcible rape under Penal Code § 261(a)(2) should not trigger a 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the district court erred in calculating the Guidelines range. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence in full. It held that the rape conviction is categorically a crime of violence because it necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. The court further concluded that the district court committed no procedural error in applying recency points or other Guidelines provisions and that the 46-month sentence, at the low end of the range, was substantively reasonable after consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. The court also rejected the challenge to the statutory enhancement under § 1326(b)(2), adhering to Almendarez-Torres.
The case involved Valerie Withrow's ERISA lawsuit against her former employer's long-term disability plan, alleging that her monthly benefits had been undercalculated based on her pre-disability earnings. The district court dismissed the action as untimely under the policy's contractual limitations period. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the policy's three-year limitations provision—required by California insurance law—does not apply to disputes over the proper amount of benefits rather than eligibility. The court relied on the defendant's concession that only ERISA's four-year California statute of limitations governs such calculation claims and remanded for further proceedings.
The case concerned Hobert Parker Jr.'s misdemeanor convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 for protesting on Ocean Avenue, a public road crossing Vandenberg Air Force Base, after receiving a barment letter from the base commander. The Ninth Circuit reversed the convictions on appeal. The court first addressed the sufficiency of the evidence and held that the government failed to prove it had absolute ownership or an exclusive right to possession of the property, as required by circuit precedent, because Ocean Avenue was subject to a public road easement under concurrent county jurisdiction. Although Parker also raised double jeopardy and First Amendment arguments, the reversal rested solely on the lack of evidence establishing an essential element of the offense.
CollegeSource, a California company that compiles and sells access to college course catalogs, sued AcademyOne, a Pennsylvania competitor, in federal court in California for misappropriating material from its websites. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over AcademyOne. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that AcademyOne was not subject to general jurisdiction in California but was subject to specific jurisdiction because it had purposefully directed commercial activities toward California residents and institutions, including through targeted online advertising, and because the misappropriation claims arose out of those contacts. The court further found that exercising jurisdiction would not be unreasonable under the Burger King fairness factors, such as burden on the defendant and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief.
Mavrix Photo, a Florida-based celebrity photo agency, sued Brand Technologies, an Ohio corporation operating the celebrity-gossip.net website, and its CEO in California federal court for copyright infringement arising from the unauthorized posting of photos taken of celebrities in the Bahamas. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied jurisdictional discovery. The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that Brand was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in California but was subject to specific personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that Brand's website was expressly aimed at California through its advertising, business partnerships with California entities, and national audience targeting, and that the resulting economic harm from lost licensing value occurred foreseeably in California, satisfying the Calder effects test for purposeful direction.
