Jay S. Bybee

The case arose after Justine Booth, a 33-year-old woman with a severe seizure disorder and cognitive disability who lived in Washington’s State Operated Living Alternatives (SOLA) program, was found unconscious in her bathtub and later died; her mother, Loraine Campbell, sued three SOLA employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming they violated Justine’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by failing to ensure safe conditions while she was in state custody. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the defendants owed Justine no affirmative constitutional duty of care because her SOLA placement was voluntary—she and her mother had requested it, and she retained the right to leave—creating neither a special relationship based on involuntary custody nor a state-created danger. It further concluded that qualified immunity protected the defendants.

civil rights

In Trigueros v. Adams, Enrique Trigueros appealed the federal district court's dismissal of his habeas petition challenging his California state conviction for murder and attempted murder, which raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling that the petition was untimely under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the California Supreme Court's request for an informal response on the merits from the state, followed by a denial of the petition, constituted a determination that Trigueros's 2005 state habeas petition was timely. This finding allowed statutory tolling of the AEDPA deadline during the state proceedings, rendering his federal petition, filed shortly after the California Supreme Court's denial, timely. The decision rested on the principle that the California Supreme Court's actions effectively overrode the Superior Court's untimeliness ruling for purposes of AEDPA tolling.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Crystal Ammons, a resident at a state-run psychiatric hospital for children, who sued the facility's former and current CEOs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to safe conditions by failing to protect her from sexual abuse or risk by a staff member. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the record supported a claim that one defendant failed to exercise professional judgment regarding the plaintiff's safety but that the other defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.

civil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Gonzalez-Melchor, the defendant was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and challenged his prior deportation on grounds that the immigration judge failed to advise him of eligibility for voluntary departure. The district court upheld the conviction after finding that Gonzalez-Melchor had waived his appeal rights, but at sentencing the court itself negotiated a reduced sentence in exchange for an explicit waiver of appellate rights. The Ninth Circuit held that this waiver was invalid and unenforceable because judicial participation in negotiating waivers of legal arguments during sentencing creates an unacceptable risk of coercion, as it contravenes the principles underlying Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1). The court vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings on whether the defendant was prejudiced by the immigration judge's failure to advise him of voluntary departure.

immigrationcriminal law

This case arose when Phoenix New Times executives Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin were arrested at home in the middle of the night after their newspaper published articles critical of Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and other officials. The plaintiffs sued the sheriff, county attorney, a special prosecutor, and others, alleging violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights as well as state-law claims stemming from the arrests and related prosecution efforts. The district court dismissed many federal claims on immunity grounds and remanded the state claims. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that absolute and qualified immunity shielded most of the officials' conduct but that the special prosecutor's role in directing the arrests stated plausible claims for First and Fourth Amendment violations. The court reasoned that the complaint sufficiently alleged the arrests lacked probable cause and were motivated by retaliation against protected speech.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Craig and Wendy Humphries, who had sued Los Angeles County and various officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After determining that the Humphries were prevailing parties, the Ninth Circuit had ordered the County to pay 10% of their attorney's fees, calculated at $59,258.09. The Supreme Court later reversed that fee ruling in Los Angeles County v. Humphries. In this order, the Ninth Circuit accordingly reverses its prior fee award and remands the matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerned whether additional counterclaim defendants could remove a class action lawsuit to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Westwood Apex filed a breach of contract action in state court against Jesus Contreras, who then filed a counterclaim adding new parties and converting the matter into a multi-million dollar class action. The additional counterclaim defendants sought removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b), which allows removal by 'any defendant' in qualifying class actions. The Ninth Circuit held that § 1453(b) does not extend removal rights to additional counterclaim defendants, consistent with the longstanding 'original defendant' rule from Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets and the lack of explicit congressional intent to alter that principle in CAFA. The court therefore affirmed the district court's remand to state court.

procedurefederal power

The case concerned Xavier Alvarez's conviction under the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b), for falsely claiming to have received the Congressional Medal of Honor while serving on a local water district board. The Ninth Circuit panel had ruled that the Act's content-based restriction on speech is subject to strict scrutiny, does not fall within any established category of unprotected speech such as fraud or defamation, and therefore violates the First Amendment. The full court denied rehearing en banc after the required vote failed to obtain a majority, leaving the panel decision in place. Concurring judges emphasized that the government bears the burden to justify restricting speech and that the Act could not meet strict scrutiny, while dissenting judges argued that false claims to military honors warrant no First Amendment protection and that the statute should be upheld.

criminal lawfree speech

The case involved Infuturia Global Ltd. suing Sequus Pharmaceuticals and others in California state court for tortious interference with a licensing agreement over liposome drug delivery technology, after an Israeli arbitration under the parties' contract had resolved related claims against a non-party licensor. The Ninth Circuit addressed whether the district court properly exercised removal jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 205 when the defendant asserted an affirmative defense based on the foreign arbitral award falling under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The court held that such jurisdiction exists because an arbitration agreement or award relates to the action whenever it could conceivably affect the outcome, without any requirement of privity between the removing defendant and the arbitration. It further concluded that removal was timely under the statute because the state court claims against Sequus had not yet been adjudicated. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's exercise of jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Fortune Dynamic, owner of the registered and incontestable trademark DELICIOUS for footwear, suing Victoria's Secret for trademark infringement after the latter used the word 'Delicious' in silver lettering on pink tank tops distributed during a 2007 one-month promotion for its BEAUTY RUSH beauty products. The district court granted summary judgment to Victoria's Secret. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed on key elements including likelihood of consumer confusion under the Sleekcraft factors, whether Victoria's Secret used the term as a trademark or merely descriptively, and whether it acted in bad faith by failing to investigate prior trademark use before the promotion. The court noted that summary judgment is generally disfavored in trademark disputes and that evidence such as the suggestive nature of the use and lack of a trademark search supported sending the case to a jury.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved defendant Xavier Alvarez, who was charged under the Stolen Valor Act for falsely claiming during a public meeting to have received the Congressional Medal of Honor after 25 years of Marine service. Alvarez entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to challenge the Act's constitutionality on First Amendment grounds. The Ninth Circuit majority held that the Act is facially unconstitutional because it criminalizes pure speech consisting of false factual statements without requiring any additional elements such as harm or fraud, and it fails strict scrutiny as it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. The court reasoned that while some categories of knowingly false speech have been deemed unprotected, the Act sweeps too broadly by punishing lies in contexts unrelated to those narrow exceptions. The decision reversed the conviction and invalidated the relevant provisions of the Act.

free speechcriminal law

The case involved a government appeal from a district court order suppressing evidence found during a vehicle search conducted after the defendant crossed the U.S. border in a white PT Cruiser. Agents acted on a tip from another smuggler identifying the vehicle and conducted surveillance of the defendant's unusual movements and phone activity near the border before stopping the car on a traffic violation and discovering heroin. The Ninth Circuit reversed the suppression ruling, holding that the search qualified as a valid extended border search because agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity tied to the border crossing. The court explained that a prior negative inspection at the port of entry does not automatically bar a later search when new information and observations support ongoing suspicion. It relied on precedents allowing extended border searches to balance individual privacy against enforcement of customs laws.

criminal lawimmigration

The case involved the Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians suing California and its governor under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), claiming the state negotiated in bad faith over amendments to an existing tribal-state compact for casino-style gaming on tribal lands. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of bad faith by the state. The court reasoned that the state's repeated demands for a portion of the tribe's net gaming revenues to be paid into the state's general fund amounted to an attempt to impose a tax prohibited by IGRA section 2710(d)(4), and that this alone justified the bad faith determination.

federal powertaxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Victor Rocha, who was convicted of assault under an assimilated California statute and federal law after participating in a prison brawl that resulted in another inmate's death. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed both convictions. The court held that the federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. § 113, precludes assimilation of California Penal Code § 245 under the Assimilated Crimes Act because the federal law covers the conduct. Additionally, the evidence that Rocha used only his bare hands was insufficient to support a conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, as body parts do not qualify as dangerous weapons under the statute.

criminal law

Vasquez-Hernandez, a Mexican citizen who entered the United States illegally in 1988, was convicted in 2002 of corporal injury to a spouse under California Penal Code § 273.5 and faced removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), but the Immigration Judge denied his motion to reopen, ruling him statutorily ineligible due to his conviction for an offense described in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2), and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Ninth Circuit denied his petition for review, holding that the petty offense exception in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) does not apply to eligibility determinations under the cancellation statute when the disqualifying offense falls under § 1227(a)(2). The court reasoned that the plain language of § 1229b(b) bars relief for such convictions without regard to the exception available only in the separate context of removability under § 1182(a)(2), and distinguished prior BIA precedent as inconsistent with circuit law.

immigrationcriminal law

This case involves a class action brought by a labor union and refinery employees against ConocoPhillips, alleging that the company violated California law by failing to provide off-duty 30-minute meal periods, as operators remained subject to interruptions and required to respond to alarms or radios during breaks. The plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief, and moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The district court denied certification under Rule 23(b)(3), reasoning that if the plaintiffs' 'on duty' legal theory failed, individualized trials would be needed for each class member, making a class action unmanageable, and then remanded the state-law claims to state court. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by assuming without a separate merits inquiry that the plaintiffs' legal theory would fail, and reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the certification motion while dismissing the remand appeal as moot.

labor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Thompson, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of seven counts involving the possession, distribution, and manufacture of PCP, plus one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Thompson appealed the district court's orders allowing him to represent himself at trial and later denying his request for a continuance and reappointment of counsel. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Thompson had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance, given evidence that Thompson was malingering to delay proceedings and had repeatedly failed to appear for trial dates. The court noted that Indiana v. Edwards did not require denial of self-representation and that precedent supported refusing last-minute requests for counsel made in bad faith to cause delay.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Craig and Wendy Humphries, who were arrested and had their children removed based on child abuse allegations that were later dismissed; two California courts found them factually innocent, but they remained listed as substantiated abusers on the state's Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) database with no mechanism to challenge or remove the listing. The database was shared with government agencies, employers, and licensing bodies, which were required to consult it for hiring and other decisions. The Ninth Circuit held that California's maintenance of the CACI without providing identified individuals a fair opportunity to contest the allegations violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that the lack of any post-inclusion review process deprived the Humphries of a protected liberty interest in their reputation and ability to pursue employment and other opportunities. The opinion amended prior language and remanded for further proceedings on the County's liability under Monell.

civil rightscriminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case involved Craig and Wendy Humphries, who were arrested on child abuse charges, had their children removed, but were later found factually innocent by criminal and juvenile courts with charges dismissed and records sealed. Despite these findings, they remained listed on California's Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) as substantiated child abusers, with no statutory procedure available to challenge or remove the listing, even as the database was shared with employers, licensing agencies, and law enforcement for decisions on hiring, custody, and other matters. The Ninth Circuit held that maintaining the Humphries on the CACI without a meaningful opportunity to contest the allegations violated their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as the listings implicated protected liberty interests and the state's investigative determinations lacked sufficient safeguards or review mechanisms.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

In Bingue v. Prunchak, a bystander injured when a police vehicle sideswiped her car during a prolonged high-speed chase of a stolen vehicle on a freeway sued the officer and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a substantive due process violation. The district court denied the officer's motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity, treating the choice between the "intent to harm" and "deliberate indifference" standards as a fact-specific inquiry. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that officers in all high-speed chases receive qualified immunity unless the plaintiff proves a deliberate intent to harm unrelated to the legitimate goal of arrest, following County of Sacramento v. Lewis and Helseth v. Burch. Applying the first step of the Saucier v. Katz analysis, the court concluded the officer was entitled to summary judgment.

civil rightsprocedure