August 11, 2022

This report is provided for case identification and background information only and does not reflect the views of the court. When a case is heard or reheard en banc, the en banc court assumes jurisdiction over the entire case, see 28 U.S.C. § 46(c), regardless of the issue or issues that may have caused any member of the Court to vote to hear the case en banc. Summerlin v. Stewart, 309 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2002).  In those cases where the parties have filed petitions for rehearing en banc and responses, you can access the pdfs by clicking the case title. 

 

Alfred v. Garland, No. 19-72903

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  15 F.4th 976 (9th Cir. 2021)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  35 F.4th 1218 (9th Cir. 2022) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  June 3, 2022

Status:  Calendared September 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Pasadena, California

Members of En Banc Court:  Not yet available

Subject Matter:   Petition for review  of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”) that found petitioner removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony offense.  

Holding: Not yet decided

 

The GEO Group v. Newsom, Nos. 20-56172, 20-56304

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  15 F.4th 919 (9th Cir. 2021)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  231 F.4th 1109 (9th Cir. 2022) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  April 26, 2022

Status:  Argued and submitted June 21, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. in Pasadena, California

Members of En Banc Court:  MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and RAWLINSON, M. SMITH, Jr., IKUTA, NGUYEN, WATFORD, OWENS, R. NELSON, LEE, FORREST, and SUNG, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Appeal from the district court’s orders denying the motion of the United States and GEO Group, Inc., a company that operates two private immigration detention centers, for a preliminary injunction, and granting the State of California’s motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, in an action brought by the United States and GEO challenging California Assembly Bill 32 (“AB 32”), which phases out all private detention facilities within the state.  

Holding: Not yet decided

 

Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland, No. 13-73719 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  12 F.4th 1126 (9th Cir. 2021)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  29 F.4th 1018 (9th Cir. 2022) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  April 1, 2022

Status:  Argued and submitted June 22, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. in Pasadena, California

Members of En Banc Court:  MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN, WARDLAW, GOULD, CALLAHAN, M. SMITH, Jr., IKUTA, COLLINS, BUMATAY, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Petition for review from Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance of immigration judge's ruling that California Penal Code § 273a(a) qualifies as “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), thereby rendering petitioner removable based on his child endangerment conviction.  

Holding: Not yet decided

 

McDougall v. County of Ventura, No. 20-56220

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  23 F.4th 1095 (9th Cir. 2022)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  26 F.4th 1016 (9th Cir. 2022) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  March 8, 2022

En Banc Order:  38 F.4th 1162 (9th Cir. 2022)

Date of En Banc Order:  June 29, 2022

Members of En Banc Court:  MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, HURWITZ, FRIEDLAND, R. NELSON, MILLER, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Appeal from the district court’s order dismissing, for failure to state a claim, an action alleging that Ventura County’s COVID-19 public health orders mandating a 48-day closure of gun shops, ammunition shops, and firing ranges violated plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. 

Holding: In a published order, the en banc court vacated the district court’s judgment and remande this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ____ (2022)

 

Lemos v. County of Sonoma, No. 19-15222

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  5 F.4th 979 (9th Cir. 2021)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  22 F.4th 1179 (9th Cir. 2022) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  January 21, 2022

En Banc Opinion:  40 F.4th 1002 (9th Cir. 2022)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  July 19, 2022

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Murguia, Judges W. Fletcher, Berzon, Callahan, Hurwitz, Owens, Friedland, Miller, Lee, Bress, and Forrest

Subject Matter:  Appeal from the district court's order on summary judgment holding that appellant's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim for excessive force was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1984).

Holding:  The en banc court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for defendants County of Sonoma, Sheriff Steve Freitas, and Deputy Marcus Holton in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by Gabrielle Lemos alleging that a sheriff’s deputy used excessive force in arresting her.

 

United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, No. 19-30006

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  3 F.4th 1193 (9th Cir. 2021)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  20 F.4th 1230 (9th Cir. 2021) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  December 29, 2021

En Banc Opinion:  39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  July 11, 2022

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Murguia, Judges McKeown, Wardlaw, Callahan, Christen, Owens, Friedland, R. Nelson, Collins, Forrest, and Bumatay

Subject Matter:  Appeal from the district court’s dismissal of an indictment charging illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Holding:  The en banc court reversed the district court’s dismissal of an indictment charging illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and remanded for further proceedings, in a case in which the district court determined that defects in the notice to appear (“NTA”)—which initiated the immigration proceedings against the defendant resulting in his eventual removal from the United States— deprived the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction to effect the removal in the first place, thereby rendering the entire immigration proceeding “void ab initio.”

 

Brach v. Newsom, No. 20-56291

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  6 F.4th 904 (9th Cir. 2021)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  18 F.4th 1031 (9th Cir. 2021) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  October 27, 2021

En Banc Opinion:  38 F.4th 6 (9th Cir. 2022)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  June 15, 2022

Members of En Banc Court:  MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN, WARDLAW, GOULD, PAEZ, BERZON, IKUTA, NGUYEN, WATFORD, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Appeal from the district court’s dismissal on summary judgment of an action brought by parents and a student alleging federal constitutional challenges to the State of California’s extended prohibition on in-person schooling during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Holding: The en banc court dismissed as moot an appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of California Governor Newsom and state officials in an action brought by a group of parents and a student alleging defendants violated federal law when they ordered schools to suspend in-person instruction in 2020 and early 2021, at a time when California was taking its first steps of navigating the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

United States v. Begay, No. 14-10080

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  934 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2019)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  15 F.4th 1254 (9th Cir. 2021) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  October 27, 2021

En Banc Opinion:  33 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2022)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  May 5, 2022

Members of En Banc Court:  MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN, WARDLAW, RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, M. SMITH, Jr., IKUTA, CHRISTEN, BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Appeal from convictions for second-degree murder (18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1153) and discharging a firearm during a "crime of violence" (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)), and a restitution order.

Holding: The en banc court affirmed Randly Irvin Begay’s convictions for second-degree murder (18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a) and 1153) and for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), vacated the district court’s order of mandatory restitution, and remanded, in a case in which a divided three-judge panel agreed with Begay’s argument that second-degree murder can be committed recklessly and therefore does not qualify as a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c).

 

Olean Wholesale Grocery Co-op v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 19-56514

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  993 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2021)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  5 F.4th 950 (9th Cir. 2021) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  August 3, 2021

En Banc Opinion:  31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  April 8, 2022 

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KLEINFELD, GRABER, W. FLETCHER, GOULD, PAEZ, CALLAHAN, IKUTA, WATFORD, FRIEDLAND, and LEE, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Appeal from the district court’s order certifying three classes in a multi-district antitrust case alleging a price-fixing conspiracy by producers of packaged tuna.

Holding: The en banc court filed an opinion affirming the district court’s order certifying three subclasses of tuna purchasers who alleged that the suppliers violated federal and state antitrust laws. The en banc court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the purchasers’ statistical regressionmodel, along with other expert evidence, was capable of showing that a price-fixing conspiracy caused class-wide antitrust impact, thus satisfying one of the prerequisites for bringing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

 

Tomczyk v. Garland, No. 16-72926

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  987 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2021)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  2 F.4th 793 997 (9th Cir. 2021) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  July 6, 2021

En Banc Opinion:  20 F.4th 495 (9th Cir. 2021)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  December 14, 2021

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN, WARDLAW, GOULD, PAEZ, CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, MILLER, LEE, FORREST, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Petition for review of an order of the Department of Homeland Security reinstating Gary Tomczyk's prior order of removal.

Holding:  Denying in part and dismissing in part Gary Tomczyk’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, the en banc court held that an individual’s inadmissible status renders that individual’s reentry illegal for purposes of reinstatement of a prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), regardless of the individual’s manner of reentry.

 

Alam v. Garland, No. 19-72744

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  837 F. App'x 424 (9th Cir. 2020)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  997 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 2021) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  June 3, 2021

En Banc Opinion:  11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  September 8, 2021

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, and Rawlinson, Callahan, M. Smith, Murguia, Christen, Watford, Hurwitz, Friedland, Bennett, and Bress, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Petition for review brought by a Bangladeshi citizen from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeald denying, on adverse credibiity grounds, applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 

Holding: The en banc court overruled prior Ninth Circuit precedent establishing and applying the single factor rule, which required the court to sustain an adverse credibility determination from the Board of Immigration Appeals, so long as one of the agency’s identified grounds was supported by substantial evidence.

 

D.D. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, No. 19-55810 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  984 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2020)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  995 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2021) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  May 6, 2021

En Banc Opinion:  18 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2021)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  November 19, 2021

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GOULD, PAEZ, BERZON, RAWLINSON, NGUYEN, HURWITZ, COLLINS, LEE, FORREST, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Appeal from the district court’s dismissal of an action brought by a student under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Holding: The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of student D.D.’s action under the Americans with Disabilities Act against Los Angeles Unified School District for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

 

City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo & Company, No. 19-15169

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  972 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2020)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  993 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2021) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  April 20, 2021

En Banc Opinion:  14 F.4th 1030 (9th Cir. 2021)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  September 28, 2021

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN, WARDLAW, PAEZ, CALLAHAN, IKUTA, NGUYEN, HURWITZ, R. NELSON, BADE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Appeal from the district court’s partial grant and partial denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in an action brought under the Fair Housing Act by the City of Oakland, alleging that Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., engaged in discriminatory lending practices by issuing predatory loans to Black and Latino residents.

Holding: The en banc court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s partial grant and partial denial of Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss and remanded for dismissal of the City of Oakland’s claims under the Fair Housing Act, alleging that Wells Fargo’s discriminatory lending practices caused higher default rates, which in turn triggered higher foreclosure rates that drove down the assessed value of properties, and which ultimately resulted in lost property tax revenue and increased municipal expenditures.

 

Duncan v. Bonta, No. 19-55376 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  970 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  988 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2021) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  February 25, 2021

En Banc Opinion:  19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  November 28, 2021

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GRABER, PAEZ, BERZON, IKUTA, MURGUIA, WATFORD, HURWITZ, R. NELSON, BUMATAY, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges
 
Subject Matter:  Appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in an action challenging California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of large-capacity magazines ("LCMs") that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Holding: The en banc court reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Defendant Rob Bonta, Attorney General for the State of California, in an action raising a facial challenge to California Penal Code section 32310, which prohibits, with certain exceptions, possession of large-capacity magazines, defined as those that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.