Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the Chief of Police Services for the City of San Clemente, sued defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after plaintiff was placed on administrative leave after he ran for, and lost, the election of Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Plaintiff claimed that his placement on administrative leave and subsequent demotion were in unconstitutional retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. The district court concluded that plaintiff's campaign speech was not protected by the First Amendment because he fell into the narrow "policymaker" exception to the general rule against politically-motivated dismissals. Although the court determined that the district court erred in this conclusion, the court agreed that the district court's alternative holding that Michael Carona, the incumbent Orange County Sheriff who won the election at issue, was entitled to qualified immunity because a government official in his position "reasonably but mistakenly" could have believed that political loyalty was required by someone with plaintiff's job responsibilities at the time he ran against Carona. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiffs, parents of GPR, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that an officer used excessive force when he shot and killed GPR. GPR and his accomplice were fleeing from the police when GPR, who was driving a truck, reversed and backed rapidly in the direction of the officer, and the officer, fearing for his life, fired at GPR and killed him. The court held that Heck v. Humphrey barred plaintiffs' suit. Plaintiffs sought to show that the officer used excessive force, but the jury that convicted GPR's accomplice had already determined that the officer acted within the scope of his employment and did not use excessive force. Accordingly, a verdict in plaintiffs' favor would tend to undermine the accomplice's conviction. Moreover, the accomplice challenged the propriety of the officer's actions in her criminal trial, her interests in doing so were in no way inconsistent with plaintiffs' interests, and the accomplice was convicted by a jury.

The State of Nevada appealed the district court's permanent injunction prohibiting the retroactive application of two Nevada laws: Assembly Bill 579, expanding the scope of sex offender registration and notification requirements, and Senate Bill 471, imposing, inter alia, residency and movement restrictions on certain sex offenders. The district court permanently enjoined retroactive application of both bills. With respect to Assembly Bill 579, the court held that its retroactive application was constitutionally sound and reversed the judgment of the district court. With respect to Senate Bill 471, the court concluded that its consideration of its disputed provisions was mooted by the State's authoritative judicial admission that - regardless of the existence of the injunction - the State would not retroactively impose residency and movement restrictions. Because the State's concession mooted its own appeal, the court remanded to the district court to consider vacating its order as to Senate Bill 471 in favor of a binding consent decree. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's order denying a stay on payment of attorney's fees.

Just when Defendants-Appellees United States Forest Service and Joseph P. Stringer (USFS), and Intervenor-Defendant Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership (ASRLP) had successfully defended an agency decision to allow snowmaking at a ski resort on federal land all the way to the United States Supreme Court, "new" plaintiffs appeared. Represented by the same attorney as the losing parties in the first lawsuit, the "new" plaintiffs—who had closely monitored the first litigation—brought certain environmental claims that were virtually identical to some that the attorney had improperly attempted to raise in the earlier lawsuit, for no apparent reason other than to ensure further delay and forestall development. "Although it is apparent to [the Ninth Circuit] that the 'new' plaintiffs and their counsel have grossly abused the judicial process by strategically holding back claims that could have, and should have, been asserted in the first lawsuit… [the Court was] compelled to hold that laches [did] not apply here" because the USFS and ASRLP could not demonstrate that they suffered prejudice, as defined by the applicable case law. The Court held that the Save the Peaks Plaintiffs' claims failed under NEPA and the APA. Accordingly, the Court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the USFS and ASRLP.

A trustee in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings took possession of Appellant SK Foods, LP's documents, which it had deposited at the its office. Appellants claimed the trustee acted illegally; that the documents should be returned; and that the trustee and his counsel should be removed. The bankruptcy court denied such relief, and the district court affirmed. This appeal raised the issue whether such orders of the bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court, are final appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(1). Upon review, the Ninth Circuit held that they are not. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

The issue on appeal in this case came from the dismissal of a putative class action filed in a California district court. The dismissal was based on a Massachusetts federal district court's final judgment certifying a nationwide class and approving a class settlement. A class member appeared through counsel as an objector in the Massachusetts case filed the present suit in California seeking to represent a nationwide class. The California complaint sought damages based in large part on the same facts alleged in the Massachusetts case, but against different defendants. The putative class was part of the same class certified in the Massachusetts case. The California defendants moved to dismiss the case based on a covenant not to sue contained in the settlement and final judgment entered in the Massachusetts case. Under that provision, the class members, including the member who filed the California suit as the named plaintiff, not only released their claims against the Massachusetts defendants but also agreed not to sue "any other person seeking to establish liability based, in whole or in part," on the claims released. The district court held that the covenant was enforceable against the named plaintiff in the California case, declined to appoint or allow a new class representative because no class had been certified, did not decide whether the covenant was enforceable against the absent members of the putative class, and dismissed. The named plaintiff appealed. Upon review, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The central issue on appeal in this case arose from an order that denied a pretrial special motion to dismiss under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute (Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.635-670), and whether that order was appealable under the collateral order doctrine as established by Supreme Court precedent. In 2009, Defendant-Appellant attorney Scott Ferrell sent demand letters to Plaintiffs-Appellees Metabolic Research, Inc. (Metabolic), at its address in Las Vegas, Nevada, and to General Nutrition Centers, Inc. (GNC), at its address in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The demand letters purported to notify the recipients that they had violated California law by falsely advertising the properties and potential benefits of "Stemulite," which they marketed as a natural fitness supplement. Defendant represented that he was acting on behalf of three individuals and a class of similarly situated people, all of whom he alleged purchased Stemulite in California, in reliance on the supposed false advertising, and had not received the purported benefits. In his letters, Defendant set out his allegations, and concluded them with offers to compromise and allow Plaintiffs time to agree to an injunction. If Plaintiffs did not accept his offer, Defendant stated he would file suit. Metabolic filed suit in Nevada against Defendant and his putative class action plaintiffs charging them with extortion, racketeering and conspiracy. Defendant removed the case to the federal district court in Nevada, then moved to dismiss Metabolic's case based on Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute. In its order dismissing Ferrell’s motion, the district court found that Ferrell had not established that the demand letter to Metabolic constituted a good-faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition because it concluded that Nevada’s anti-SLAPP legislation only protected communications made directly to a governmental agency and did not protect a demand letter sent to a potential defendant in litigation. Finding that the Nevada legislature did not intend for its anti-SLAPP law to function as an immunity from suit, Defendant's motion was not immediately appealable. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court's denial of Defendant's special motion was not made in error.

Plaintiff, a citizen of Malaysia, alleged that she was mistakenly placed on the "No-Fly List" and other terrorist watchlists. Plaintiff was legally in the United States from 2001 to 2005 as a Ph.D. student at Stanford University. In 2005, plaintiff attempted to travel to Malaysia on a Stanford-sponsored conference where she was to present her doctoral research, she was prevented from flying and detained for questioning, eventually permitted to fly to Malaysia the following day, but has not been permitted to return to the United States since returning to Malaysia. Plaintiff brought suit in federal court seeking, among other things, injunctive relief under the First and Fifth Amendments, with the ultimate aim of having her name removed from the government's watchlists. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff had standing under Article III to challenge the presence of her name on government watchlists. The court also held that plaintiff had established "significant voluntary connection" with the United States such that she had the right to assert claims under the First and Fifth Amendments. However, the court expressed no opinion on the validity of the underlying constitutional claims. The court vacated in part and affirmed in part the district court's discovery rulings.

Defendant was convicted of criminal contempt of court in violation of 18 U.S.C. 402 for "ghostwriting" eight pleadings for a pro se litigant in a civil lawsuit. Defendant appealed his conviction on four grounds, contending that: (1) he was denied his statutory right to a jury trial; (2) he could not be prosecuted for criminal contempt under section 402 on the basis that he did not comply with Local Rules 10-1 and 10-2; (3) Nevada Revised Statute 7.285 was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him; and (4) he did not violate section 7.285. The court held that the failure to try defendant by jury mandated reversal of his criminal contempt conviction where deprivation of the right to a jury trial constituted a structural error requiring reversal. The court also held that local court rules, including Rule 10-1 and 10-2, did not constitute rules within the meaning of section 402 and thus could not serve as predicates for criminal convictions. Therefore, the court reversed defendant's conviction based on the first two claims and did not reach the remaining claims.

Defendant was sentenced to death in Nevada in 1984 after a three-judge post-conviction sentencing panel found the existence of two statutory aggravating circumstances. However, defendant's death sentence was vacated in 2007 after the Nevada Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to use as an aggravating circumstance the fact that a murder was committed in the course of committing another felony or felonies. Nevada subsequently sought to reimpose the death penalty on defendant, using a different statutory aggravating circumstance. Defendant contended that to impose the death penalty a second time, albeit based on aggravating circumstances different than those used in the first trial, violated his right under the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. The court held that defendant's double jeopardy rights would not be violated by the state again seeking a death sentence based on aggravating circumstances different from those found and used by the sentencer to impose the first death penalty sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's habeas petition.