United States Supreme Court (1 summary)
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
The anti-discrimination principle is fundamental to the dormant Commerce Clause; to show violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, petitioner must show discrimination by a statute on out of state economies, evidenced by a substantial burden on the interstate economy. Additionally, under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970), if there is a burden on interstate economy from a facially neutral law, that burden is allowed so long as it is outweighed by putative local benefits.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (12 summaries)
Porter v. Martinez
This opinion amended Porter v. Martinez, No. 21-55249, __F4th__ (9th Cir April, 2023) by altering Footnote 6 to include that, in asking for an injunction, plaintiff wanted an injunction against enforcing all bans on expressive honking, but the district court would have discretion in applying an injunction more narrowly. The opinion was otherwise unchanged.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Dickey v. Davis, in his capacity as Warden of San Quentin State Prison
Trial violations regarding witness testimony are material to a determination of a penalty phase verdict when the witness’s testimony could have made a difference to the jury’s imposition of the death penalty and, under the stricter Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) standard, where a verdict is already of questionable validity such that “additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt.” Under those high standards, a prosecutor violating Brady and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) through improper witness testimony, is material to penalty phase verdicts.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Walker
Time between a trial and indictment is properly excluded under the “ends of justice” provision of the Speedy Trial Act where factors weigh heavily in favor of exclusion, pursuant to United States v. Olsen, 21 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2000). Specifically, delay due to the COVID-19 Pandemic will weigh heavily in favor of exclusion. Additionally, defendant’s challenge to the proper mental state of the “affecting commerce” element of the felon in possession statute fails because that element is purely jurisdictional, and therefore does not require a knowing mental state.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Williams
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over prejudgment orders for prosecutorial misconduct because the issue is “collateral to the merits of an action and too important to be denied immediate review,” Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009). Additionally, disqualification of an entire U.S. Attorneys Office is only appropriate when grounded in “a clear basis in fact and law,” United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 1985), which requires that (1) “a district court must find a strong factual predicate for blanket disqualification,” and; (2) “a district court must determine that the U.S. Attorney’s Office continued representation of the government will result in a legal or ethical violation.” United States v. Williams et al., __F.3d__ (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Murphy Co. v. Biden
A claim against the president is justiciable if the ultra vires claim alleges that separation of powers principles were violated due to a lack of constitutional and statutory authority. Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Com. Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949); Sierra Club v. Trump, 963 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2020).
The president may expand land grants under the Antiquities Act without conflicting with the O&C Act because the Secretary of the Interior retains broad discretion to manage the land relevant to the O&C Act.
- Constitutional Law
Pyankovska v. Abid
Where defendants’ violate the Federal Wiretap Act, Noerr-Pennington will protect petitioner’s First Amendment rights when the lawsuit in question burdened the individual’s rights as petitioner; it will not act as a carte blanche to violate statutes relevant to the lawsuit in question
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Porter v. Martinez
Where "expressive" honks are unlawful under Section 27001, the First and Fourteenth Amendment are not violated because Section 27001 blocks all unnecessary honks regardless of their purpose thus making the regulation content-neutral; additionally, Section 27001 passes intermediate scrutiny because the regulation furthers a substantial government interest unrelated to suppression of free expression and the regulation is narrowly tailored to its interest.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Honey Bum, LLC v. Fashion Nova, Inc.
Whether summary judgement is appropriate where plaintiff cannot show a horizontal agreement between vendors in a per se group boycott; whether summary judgement of California TIPER and TIC tort claims are appropriate without valid outside illegal acts or valid contracts
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Yim v. Seattle
The ordinance must not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.” Board of Trs. Of State Univ. Of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 478 (1989). If a speech is commercial, intermediate scrutiny should be applied, if non-commercial, strict scrutiny should be applied. If the right to exclude was fundamental, strict scrutiny should be applied.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Glazer Capital Management, L.P., et al. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al.
Where plaintiffs' adequately pled fraud under Section 10b and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange act, statements by defendant may still be protected when they are forward-looking under the PSLRA's safe harbor provision
Area(s) of Law:- Business 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
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
Oregon Court of Appeals (5 summaries)
City of Salem v. Stadeli
The firefighter’s presumption is a rebuttable presumption that employment contributed to the employee's condition or injury. It shifts the burden of production and persuasion onto the employer. To rebut the presumption, the employer must show that the employee’s work was not a fact in consequence “of any amount” in causing the employee’s condition. City of Salem v. Stadeli, 327 Or App 396, __P3d__ (2023). The employer will generally have to “un[-]persuade[]” a tribunal that work was a fact in consequence to the employee’s condition. Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
JGB Enterprises, LLC, dba Twisted River Saloon v. Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission
Where a licensee requested a late hearing, licensee must show good cause, which requires more than "the proceedings in total" suggest licensee would request that hearing. Additionally, ORS 471.333(3), which limits the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OCCL)'s discretion in suspending licenses in certain circumstances, may still suspend licenses where licensee violated health and safety guidelines set by Oregon Health Authority (OHA) or executive orders.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
State v. Gabr
Motions to suppress rightfully made when evidence at trial is tainted by illegal search and seizure. Additionally, arguments materially altering the record may not be allowed at appeals when unpreserved below.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
State v. Neill
Where defendant and the state enter a plea agreement, and pursuant that agreement, agree to a stipulated sentence in the event probation is violated, that sentence is precluded from appeals under ORS 138.105(9) because defendant had explicitly agreed to that sentence in the event of that condition.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Cage
An officer has authority to stop a person if they "reasonably suspect - based on specific articulable facts - that the person committed a specific crime or type of crime or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime." (quoting, State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 316 Or 163, 182 (2017). Reasonable suspicion cannot be established from evidence acquired after a stop. State vl. Ellis, 252 Or App 382, 389 (2012). When relying solely on a 9-1-1 report, the report must have an “indicia of reliability.” State v. Villegas-Varela, 132 Or App 112, 115 (1994.)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure