Search

Moving Oxnard Forward v. Lopez - Campaign Contribution Limits Constitutional

The Ninth Circuit en banc affirmed the district court's summary judgment upholding Measure B's per candidate and aggregate campaign contribution limits against First Amendment challenges brought by Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. The court held the City established a sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption, supported by a District Attorney investigation, newspaper article, resident survey showing 77% wanted accountability, and the fact that 82% of voters approved Measure B. Applying the Randall v. Sorrell 'danger signs' framework, the court found Measure B's limits closely drawn to the City's interest. Judge Collins, joined by Judge VanDyke, dissented, arguing the City's evidence did not meet the proper threshold burden under Supreme Court authority.

Brown v. Salcido - Ninth Circuit Denies Intervention Motion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion to intervene filed by 185 Google Chrome users (the Salcido plaintiffs) seeking to appeal the denial of class certification for damages in a lawsuit alleging Google improperly collected Incognito mode user data. The court applied a three-factor timeliness test for intervention motions and held that all factors weighed against intervention: the stage of proceedings was unfavorable, intervening would prejudice Google and the named plaintiffs by likely unraveling the existing settlement, and the three-month delay lacked justification. The ruling reinforces that intervention motions filed near the end of class settlements face a high bar.

Harris v. Muhammad

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a published opinion in Harris v. Muhammad (No. 24-3307) on February 4, 2026. The court resolved an appeal with a final judgment. No specific compliance obligations, penalties, or forward-looking deadlines are established by this ruling for external parties.

USA v. California — Ninth Circuit Grants Injunction Against No Vigilantes Act § 10

The Ninth Circuit granted the United States' motion for an injunction pending appeal, enjoining California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta from applying or enforcing § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act (California Penal Code § 13654) against federal agencies and officers. The panel held that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that § 10 violates the Supremacy Clause because it attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions. The court found the other preliminary injunction factors also weigh in the United States' favor. Federal law enforcement officers operating in California are no longer subject to the state's visible identification requirement while performing enforcement duties, pending further court order.

R. v. Ventura Unified School District - IDEA Statute of Limitations

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment in this IDEA case, holding that claims for educational services received before 2019 were time-barred. The court held that the IDEA's two-year limitations period under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C) begins when parents know or should know both the school district's failure to assess and diagnose their child and that the child is being denied FAPE. The panel also vacated the remedial order establishing an educational trust and the order granting a motion to enforce the judgment, remanding for further proceedings as to attorneys' fees.

J.R. v. Ventura Unified School District - IDEA Two-Year Limitations Period Ruling

The Ninth Circuit reversed the Central District of California's judgment and held that parents' IDEA lawsuit was untimely as to educational services their child received before 2019. The panel established that the IDEA's two-year statute of limitations begins when parents know or should know (1) the school's failure to assess and diagnose, and (2) that their child is being denied FAPE. The court rejected exceptions for school district misrepresentations and withheld information, finding the parents' claims predating the limitations period time-barred. The panel reversed the judgment awarding benefits for 2012-2019, vacated the educational trust order, and remanded for attorneys' fees proceedings.

Ninth Circuit Holds FCA Claims Related to 340B Program May Proceed

On March 17, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal in United States ex rel. Adventist Health System of West v. AbbVie Inc., holding that FCA claims tied to alleged 340B Drug Pricing Program ceiling-price noncompliance may proceed. The court found that FCA claims are "free-standing and independent" of 340B's enforcement mechanisms and that Adventist plausibly alleged false claims causing government overpayment through Medicaid, Medicare, and other federal programs. The United States filed an amicus brief urging reversal. The decision returns the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Bolandian Insider Trading Conviction Vacated, Remanded

The Ninth Circuit vacated Shahriyar Bolandian's six-count insider trading conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court failed to adequately investigate when Juror No. 6 expressed uncertainty about his impartiality. The appellate court found the district court impermissibly delegated its independent duty to investigate juror bias to the juror himself, violating Bolandian's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Reviewing for plain error, the panel held the district court plainly erred in failing to strike Juror No. 6 and that this error affected Bolandian's substantial rights and the fairness and public reputation of the proceedings.

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. USDOI - FLPMA Land Exchange Rehearing Denied

The Ninth Circuit denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. USDOI on April 21, 2026, upholding the panel majority's affirmance of summary judgment for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The court held that the general land exchange authorization under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act does not vitiate a specific 1900 Act provision restricting disposal of certain Fort Hall Indian Reservation ceded lands to specified categories of law. Judges Collins and Tung dissented, arguing FLPMA's uniform disposal procedures superseded the 1900 Act's exclusivity provision.

McAuliffe v. Robinson Helicopter Co. — GARA Rolling Provision Interpretation

The Ninth Circuit reversed in part the district court's summary judgment for Robinson Helicopter Company in a wrongful death action arising from a fatal helicopter sightseeing crash in Kailua, Hawai'i on April 29, 2019. The court held that GARA's rolling provision (Section 2(a)(2)) does not require substantive alteration of replacement parts to restart the eighteen-year repose period — only that replacement parts from the manufacturer were installed. The district court must reconsider causation on remand. The court affirmed the district court's rejection of the fraud exception, finding plaintiffs made no particularized allegations of knowing FAA misrepresentation.

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. USDOI - FLPMA Land Exchange Authority

The Ninth Circuit denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (Dkt. Nos. 129 and 131) in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. USDOI, leaving intact a panel ruling that the general land-exchange authorization under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 does not override a specific 1900 Act provision restricting disposal of ceded Fort Hall Indian Reservation lands. Judges Collins and Tung each dissented from the en banc denial, with Collins arguing the panel misread the 1900 Act and Tung arguing the two statutes can be harmonized.