Galaza v. Mayorkas
The ATSA establishes basic qualifications for the position of ATSA security screener, including physical requirements, and states that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may not be deployed as a security screener unless that individual meets” those requirements. 49 U.S.C. § 44935(f).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Credit One Bank v. Hestrin
Abstention, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is appropriate for civil enforcement actions when “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
In Re: American Rivers v. American Petroleum Institute
Under 9th Circuit precedent, permanent equitable remedies can only be awarded against illegal executive action. Likewise, the APA’s text is best read as authorizing a court to vacate an agency action only when that court first held that action unlawful.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Kappouta v. Valiant Integrated Services, LLC.
Under DCWPA, a disinterested observer would need to reasonably conclude that the disclosure was a violation of law related to a defense contract.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Jane Sullivan, et al v. University of Washington
Under Garcetti, only “when an employee speaks as a citizen addressing a matter of public concern” do the Supreme Court’s “cases indicate that the First Amendment may be implicated.” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407, 2423 (2022)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Durate v. Stockton
Excessive force claims under § 1983 require an actual judgement of conviction, not its functional equivalent, to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Lopez v. Garland
Though 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(a) does not expressly address cross-appeals, the rule requiring separate cross-appeals is an “unwritten but longstanding rule" that the BIA has consistently chosen to apply in its decisions. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S 237, 244 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Alvarez
“An alien can show that his due process rights were violated by defects in his deportation proceeding if he shows that his underlying state conviction was not, in fact, an aggravated felony.” United States v. Martinez, 786 F.3d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir. 2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Bonta
State laws which burden the formation of arbitration agreements stand as an obstacle to the Federal Arbitration Act and are preempted by federal law. Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 683 (1996) and Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
United States v. Michell
Under Rehaif, to obtain a conviction for felon-in-possession offenses, the government must prove both that defendant “knew he possessed a firearm” and “that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2200 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
US v. Farias-Contreras
“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Bowerman, et al. v. Field Asset Services, Inc., et al.
A putative employer cannot be liable to an entire class of putative employees for failing to reimburse their business expenses and pay them overtime unless the putative employer failed to do so for each class member.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Armstrong v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
The party asserting waiver of arbitration must demonstrate: (1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; and (2) intentional acts inconsistent with that existing right, and the burden for establishing waiver is no longer heavy.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Oberstein v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
An enforceable agreement may be found where “(1) the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms” Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LCC, 30 F.4th 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2022)
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
A plaintiff has standing to seek declaratory relief of non-infringement if he demonstrates a real and reasonable apprehension that he will be subject to liability if he continues with his course of conduct. Societe de Conditionnement en Aluminium v. Hunter Eng’g Co., 655 F.2d 938, 944-54 (9th Cir. 1981); Chesebrough-Pond’s Inc. v. Faberege Inc., 666 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hill v. Xerox Business Services, LLC
A party waives its right to compel arbitration when (1) it has knowledge of the right, and (2) it acts inconsistently with that right.
Area(s) of Law:- Alternative Dispute Resolution
Armstrong v. Newsom
"Relief prescribing more specific mechanisms of compliance is appropriate” under the PLRA where a district court has already attempted to remedy the situation “through less intrusive means, and those attempts have failed.” Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 983-984 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Armstrong v. Shwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058,1071).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Pettibone et al. v. Russell
Under Bivens, a court must go through two steps. First, we ask whether the case presents “a new Bivens context”—i.e., is it “meaningful[ly]” different from the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action.” Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1803 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Barrogo
Requiring the authentication feature to be physically “on . . . [a] means of identification” would be inconsistent with § 1028(d)(7). The statute includes both physical and non-physical “means of identification,” therefore “used...on” in §1028(d)(1) includes non- physical authentication features that are naturally associated with a physical or non-physical “means of identification.” Here, that is a PIN “on” an account or associated card.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
“USERRA § 4316(b)(1) requires employers to provide employees who take military leave with the same non-seniority rights and benefits as their colleagues who take comparable non-military leaves.”
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Rigsby, et al v. GoDaddy Inc., et al
"Where domain names are used to infringe, the infringement does not result from a registrar's registration activities, but from the registrant's use... in connection with goods and services." Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc. 194 F.3d 980, 985 (9th Cir. 1999). “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 USC §230(c)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Center for Community Action v. FAA
“Judicial review of agency decisions under [NEPA] is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies that an agency action may only be overturned when it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Earth Island Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law