Category Archives: npy

Ninth circuit

By | 04.10.2020

It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts :. Additionally, it sometimes handles appeals that originate from American Samoawhich has no district court and partially relies on the District of Hawaii for its federal cases.

Headquartered in San Francisco, Californiathe Ninth Circuit is by far the largest of the thirteen courts of appealswith 29 active judgeships.

Orange & Osceola Counties

Browning U. Chambers U. Court of Appeals. Panels of the court occasionally travel to hear cases in other locations within the circuit. Although the judges travel around the circuit, the court arranges its hearings so that cases from the northern region of the circuit are heard in Seattle or Portland, cases from southern California and Arizona are heard in Pasadena, and cases from northern California, NevadaHawaiiand the Pacific territories are heard in San Francisco.

Additionally, the court holds yearly sittings in Anchorage and Honolulu. For lawyers who must come and present their cases to the court in person, this administrative grouping of cases helps to reduce the time and cost of travel. Ninth Circuit judges are also appointed by the United States Secretary of the Interior to serve as temporary acting Associate Justices for non-federal appellate sessions at the High Court of American Samoa in Fagatogo.

The large size of the current court is because both the population of the western states and the geographic jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit have increased dramatically since the U. As new states and territories were added to the federal judicial hierarchy in the twentieth century, many of those in the West were placed in the Ninth Circuit: the newly acquired Territory of Hawaii inArizona upon its admission to the Union inthe Territory of Alaska inGuam inand the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in The Ninth Circuit also had jurisdiction over certain American interests in Chinain that it had jurisdiction over appeals from the United States Court for China during the existence of that court from through However, the Philippines were never under the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction.

Congress never created a federal district court in the Philippines from which the Ninth Circuit could hear appeals. Inthe Ninth Circuit became the first federal judicial circuit to set up a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel as authorized by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of The cultural and political jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit is just as varied as the land within its geographical borders. In a dissenting opinion in a rights of publicity case involving the Wheel of Fortune star Vanna WhiteCircuit Judge Alex Kozinski sardonically noted that "[f]or better or worse, we are the Court of Appeals for the Hollywood Circuit.

Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeldwho maintains his judicial chambers in Fairbanks, Alaskawrote in a letter in "Much federal law is not national in scope It is easy to make a mistake construing these laws when unfamiliar with them, as we often are, or not interpreting them regularly, as we never do.

Some argue the court's rulings are reversed by the Supreme Court at a higher rate than other courts. From toof the 0. Some argue the court's high percentage of reversals is illusory, resulting from the circuit hearing more cases than the other circuits.

This results in the Supreme Court reviewing a smaller proportion of its cases, letting stand the vast majority of its cases.

However, a detailed study in reported by Brian T. Fitzpatricka law professor at Vanderbilt Universitylooked at how often a federal circuit court was reversed for every thousand cases it terminated on the merits between and Many commentators have argued that the Ninth Circuit faces several adverse consequences of its large size, [14] such as "unwieldly size, procedural inefficiencies, jurisprudential unpredictability, and unusual en banc process.Daily protests have become the norm in Portland, in the months since Minneapolis police killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes.

In August, journalists and legal observers won an injunction barring federal agents from assaulting them and requiring them to wear unique identifying numbers.

Contrary to the fanfare of an early August announcement from local officials, federal agents have not left Portland. Oregon Governor Kate Brown brokered a deal with the federal government for Oregon State Troopers to temporarily take over the protection of federal buildings like the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse, where protests had become centered. Since then, Portland Police have taken over for state troopers, in part due to state police anger over the policy of a newly elected district attorney who has decided not to pursue low-level charges against protesters.

But the federal officers Gov. The court ruled that the injunction was necessary because the threat of injury was not theoretical, and was part of a persistent and ongoing pattern.

But the Ninth Circuit brushed off that claim, saying the injunction simply found that it was not necessary for federal agents to disperse journalists in order to protect federal property. Journalists, on the other hand, have a vital role to play during and after dispersal orders.

It may be months before the Ninth Circuit rules on the appeal and hands the case back to Judge Simon. They added that Simon might consider detailing where federal agents have authority to disperse protesters. A bloodied demonstrator is arrested by federal police during a Black Lives Matter protest at the Mark O. And they noted the democratic function of recording and publicizing police actions. Like this: Like LoadingOpinions are ordinarily posted to this website by am Pacific Time.

Memorandum Dispositions are posted up until pm Pacific Time.

ninth circuit

There is no charge to view or download these documents from our website. Please note that opinions and dispositions are also available from the PACER system shortly before they are posted to this site. PACER is a fee based system. PACER account holders may register as non-party users of the court's Appellate ECF system to obtain immediate email notification of the filing of opinions and dispositions in specific cases.

ninth circuit

Click here to register as a non-party user. RSS feed available:. Please contact the clerk's office at for Published Opinions posted before January 3, Ninth Circuit opinions along with those of several other circuits dating back to January are available for free with advanced search capabilities at the Government Printing Office's Federal Digital System here.

Click for Case Code Glossary. Opinions Opinions are ordinarily posted to this website by am Pacific Time. Case Title:. Authoring Judge:. USA V. NLRB V. FTC V. EPIC V. NAEC V. More records available. Click here to see them.You are now logged in.

Forgot your password? The Ninth Circuit handed down a new decision last week, United States v. Moalinon the telephony metadata program that Edward Snowden revealed in The opinion, by Judge Marsha Berzon, has drawn some attention for its rulings on the lawfulness of the now-expired program. But there's a part of the opinion that has been mostly overlooked that strikes me as much more important.

Starting around page 36 of the opinion, the court appears to articulate a new Fourth Amendment notice requirement. It suggests that that defendants charged with crimes must be notified about surveillance practices that led to evidence that may be used in their case. This holding was easy to miss if you weren't looking for it, in part because the court doesn't even apply its own test.

Because the defendants learned of the surveillance anyway, the court rules, there was no prejudice and the court doesn't need to reach whether the notice requirement applied to the facts of Moalin. But although this passage ends up having no bearing on this one case, it strikes me as potentially a pretty big deal going forward for the field of surveillance law. I thought I would blog about the passage, and its potential significance, to alert practitioners and interested readers.

Here's the context. The Fourth Amendment traditionally has only one notice requirement. When the government executes a search warrant, the government has to give notice—even if delayed notice—that the warrant was executed. See, e. United States, US Normally the search itself will give notice, as it's hard to miss when the police knock down your door and take away your stuff. But even if the search itself doesn't provide notice, the government has to give post-search notice that the search occurred.

See id. In the past, at least, this notice requirement has been understood to be pretty modest. For example, say the government gets a warrant to seize all of your e-mails held by your e-mail provider.

The provider shares all of your e-mails, and the government looks through them. Do you get notice? No, the courts say.

The Fourth Amendment notice requirement is satisfied by notice to the e-mail provider rather than to you. The search occurred there, and what matters is that notice was provided where the search occurred. Scully, F. Enter the new Ninth Circuit decision. As I read it, it has a very different concept of the Fourth Amendment's notice requirement. In Moalinthe question was whether defendants had to be notified about a warrantless national security program involving collection of telephone metadata that had been collected about them as part of the investigation.

I would have thought the answer is "no.

Ninth Circuit Rules Federal Agents Can’t Target Journalists at Portland Protests

And beyond that, the program under then-existing precedent would have thought to not be a search at all. The Ninth Circuit imagines a different kind of notice requirement, though. Instead of a notice requirement that a warrant was executed, flowing from the warrant itself, this is a notice requirement that appears to be triggered only if and when criminal charges are filed providing notice that evidence about a person was collected using a surveillance practice that may or may not be a search.

In effect, it's a notice to criminal defendants to consider filing a motion to suppress to challenge the investigation and vindicate any Fourth Amendment rights that may or may not have been at stake. The Fourth Amendment requires that a person subject to a government search receive notice of the search, absent "exigent circumstances.

State of New York, U.You are now logged in. Forgot your password? Yesterday, in Sierra Club v. The majority opinion, written by Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, relies on several obvious shortcomings in the administration's position:. Section allows the Secretary of Defense to undertake military construction projects in the event of a national emergency requiring the use of the armed forces, but the statute specifies that such projects must be "necessary to support such use of the armed forces.

The Federal Defendants have not established that the projects are necessary to support the use of the armed forces because: 1 the administrative record shows that the border wall projects are intended to support and benefit DHS—a civilian agency—rather than the armed forces, and 2 the Federal Defendants have not established, or even alleged, that the projects are, in fact, necessary to support the use of the armed forces.

First, the record illustrates that the border wall projects are intended to benefit [the Department of Homeland Security] and its subagencies, CBP and U. The record demonstrates that DoD primarily considered the many benefits to these civilian agencies in determining that physical barriers are necessary….

To the extent DoD decision-makers believed that construction would benefit DoD at all, the record demonstrates that the construction is merely expected to help DoD help DHS. DoD determined that the barriers would serve as force multipliers," by allowing military personnel to cover other high-traffic border areas without existing barriers, a benefit plainly intended to assist DHS, which, by statute, is tasked with "[s]ecuring the borders, territorial waters, ports, terminals, waterways, and air, land, and sea transportation systems of the United States….

Second, the Federal Defendants have not even alleged, let alone established as a matter of fact, that the border wall construction projects are "necessary" under any ordinary understanding of the word. In assessing the necessity of the border wall construction projects, the Federal Defendants concluded: "In short, these barriers will allow DoD to provide support to DHS more efficiently and effectively.

In this respect the contemplated construction projects are force multipliers. That Congress declined to provide more substantial funding for border wall construction and voted twice to terminate the President's declaration of a national emergency underscores that the border wall is not, in fact, required or needed.

The key point here is that, far from being a "military installation" or even one "necessary" to support the use of the armed forces, the purpose of the border wall is in fact to aid in civilian law enforcement in this case with respect to drug and immigration laws. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Daniel Collins argues that Section authorizes diversion of funds for pretty much any activity done within an area placed under military jurisdiction.

He emphasizes that "military construction" under Section is understood to mean construction "with respect to a military installation," under 10 USC Section a. The Trump administration and Collins argue that "other activity" means any activity the Department of Defense might want to engage in that could, in its view, help address the "national emergency" declared by the President.

As Judge Thomas points out, this theory has the absurd consequence that it "would grant [the Department of Defense] essentially boundless authority to reallocate military construction funds to build anything they want, anywhere they want, provided they first obtain jurisdiction over the land where the construction will occur. Thus, he could use emergency declarations to transform military construction funds into a slush fund to build almost anything for any purpose whatsoever.

Conservatives who might support the use of such power to build a border wall aren't likely to be happy if Joe Biden or some other Democratic president uses the same reasoning to declare a national emergency over climate change or gun violence, and then use it to divert funds to build facilities for the Green New Deal, or to promote restrictions on gun rights. Such boundless authority would raise obvious separation of powers problems, and it makes a hash of the overall structure of Sectionwhich is supposed to limit the relevant authority to divert funds to projects necessary to support military operations, not the use of the military for civilian law enforcement.These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online? Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. Cases by Court U. Cases 1 - 10 ofRSS Feed View as table.

Lee v. Admiral Insurance Company Filed: October 9, as cv Defendant: Admiral Insurance Company. Plaintiff: Timothy Hunt Lee. Blue v. Matthew Joseph Cupp v. Richard Baron, et al Filed: October 9, as cv State of Oregon v. Strasser Filed: October 9, as cv Cause Of Action: Petition for Removal. Diaz v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Filed: October 9, as cv Plaintiff v. Defendant Filed: October 9, as cv Plaintiff: Plaintiff v.

Defendant: Plaintiff v. Moxley v. Orozco Filed: October 9, as cv Plaintiff: Mychelle Moxley. Defendant: Christina Orozco. Shields v. Plaintiff: Linda I Shields.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Subscribe Now. Justia Legal Resources. Find a Lawyer. Law Students. US Federal Law. US State Law. Other Databases. Legal Marketing.Citing national security concerns, the government is attempting to infringe on Twitter's First Amendment right to inform the public about secret government surveillance orders.

ninth circuit

For more than six years, Twitter has been fighting in court to share information about law enforcement orders it received in InTwitter submitted a draft transparency report to the FBI to review. The FBI censored the report, banning Twitter from sharing the total number of foreign intelligence surveillance orders the government had served within a six-month period.

In response, Twitter filed suit in order to assert its First Amendment right to share that information. That single paragraph was not only perfunctory, but incorrect. As we explained in our amicus brief, to pass constitutional scrutiny, the government must prove that silencing speech before it occurs is necessary to avoid harm that is not only extremely serious but is also imminent and irreparable.

Nor did the judge address whether the censorship was actually necessary, and whether less-restrictive alternatives could mitigate the potential for harm. This cursory analysis was a far cry from the extraordinarily exacting scrutiny that the First Amendment requires.

We hope that the hope that the Ninth Circuit will say the same. Join EFF Lists. Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Did the Ninth Circuit Create a New Fourth Amendment Notice Requirement for Surveillance Practices?

By Naomi Gilens. Related Issues Transparency. National Security Letters. Related Cases Twitter v. Email updates on news, actions, events in your area, and more. Email Address. Postal Code optional. Anti-spam question: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for Electronic Frontier Foundation :. Don't fill out this field required. Thanks, you're awesome!

Trump: Federal courts in Ninth Circuit 'very unfair'

Please check your email for a confirmation link. Related Updates. Washington, D. In a win for transparency, a state court judge ordered the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CDCR to disclose records regarding the race and ethnicity of parole candidates. This is also a win for innovation, because the plaintiffs will use this data to build new technology in service San Francisco—The Electronic Frontier Foundation EFFin partnership with the Reynolds School of Journalism at the University of Nevada, Reno, today launched the largest-ever collection of searchable data on police use of surveillance technologies, created as a tool for the public to learn about facial recognition, drones, license plate readers Keeping the internet open, free, and secure requires eternal vigilance and the constant cooperation of freedom defenders all over the web and the world.

At a dark time when the possibility of police accountability seems especially bleak, there is a new glimmer of light courtesy of the California Supreme Court. Under a new ruling, government agencies cannot pass the cost of redacting police body-camera footage and other digital public records onto the members of In a lawsuit filed today by the Electronic In a lawsuit filed by EFF, the researchers argue that the Join Our Newsletter!

Related cases Twitter v. Follow EFF: twitter facebook instagram youtube flicker rss. Press Press Contact.

Category: npy

thoughts on “Ninth circuit

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *