Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2017, H.R. 196 [24] The more recent proposals have aimed to redefine the Ninth Circuit to cover California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and to create a new Twelfth Circuit to cover Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
After President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, the Court held the case in abeyance. It vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment as moot in June after the government rescinded MPP. [6] In April 2021, Texas and Missouri challenged the rescission of MPP in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Remand to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of the decision in Lindke. Wilkinson v. Garland: 22–666: March 19, 2024: Federal courts have the jurisdiction to review the determinations of immigration judges as a mixed question of law. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre: 22–1178: March 19, 2024
With two split panels in a row ruling in opposite ways, the case could be taken up by a 11-judge "en banc" panel of the 9th Circuit or appealed to the conservative U.S. Supreme Court, which has ...
Pages in category "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases" The following 162 pages are in this category, out of 162 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case back to the district court. [6] The case was later moved to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in the 5th Circuit. [7]
Demers v. Austin (746 F.3d 402, 9th Cir., 2014) was a landmark decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, extending First Amendment protection to professors at public universities for on-the-job speech that deals with public issues related to teaching or scholarship, whether inside or outside of the classroom. [1]
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. [1]