June 17, 2021

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 oppositions, you can access the pdfs by clicking the case title.

 

Alam v. Garland, No. 19-72744

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  837 F. Appx'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

Status:   Not yet calendared

Members of En Banc Court:  Not yet available

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: Not yet decided

 

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

Status:   Virtual oral argument scheduled on June 24, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. Pacific time

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: Not yet decided

 

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

Status:   Virtual oral argument scheduled on June 23, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. Pacific time

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: Not yet decided

 

Duncan v. Becerra, 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

Status:   Virtual oral argument scheduled on June 22, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. Pacific time

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: Not yet decided

 

Cheneau v. Wilkinson, No. 15-70636 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  971 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2020)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  983 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2021) 

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

En Banc Opinion:  997 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2021)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  May 13, 2021

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and MCKEOWN, WARDLAW, PAEZ, CHRISTEN, BENNETT, MILLER, BRESS, FORREST, BUMATAY, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges
 
Subject Matter:  Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") determination that Monssef Cheneau does not qualify for derivative citizenship and that his California burglary conviction was a crime-of-violence aggravated felont that renders him removable.

Holding: Remanding to the three-judge panel that previously denied Monssef Cheneau’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the en banc court held that the second clause of the derivative citizenship statute set out at former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(5) does not require that the child have been granted lawful permanent residency prior to the age of eighteen in order to derive citizenship from a parent who naturalized, but the child must have demonstrated an objective official manifestation of permanent residence.

  

United States v. Bacon, No. 18-50120

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 956 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2020)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  974 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2020) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  September 4, 2020 

En Banc Opinion:  979 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 2020)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  November 5, 2020

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Paez, Berzon, Rawlinson, Callahan, Murguia, Hurwitz, Owens, Miller, Bade, and Lee

Subject Matter:   Appeal from conviction for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily harm and assault causing serious bodily injury, in a case in which defendant argued that the district court should have allowed his forensic clinical expert psychologist to testify, which would have allowed defendant to present his insanity defense to the jury.

Holding:  The en banc court remanded to the three-judge panel for a determination of the proper remedy in this criminal case in which the three-judge panel held that the district court had employed the incorrect legal standard for relevance under Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, when irt excluded testimony fromthe defendant's proposed expert. 

  

Medina Tovar v. Zuchowski, No. 18-35072

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 950 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2020)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  957 F.3d 1381 (9th Cir. 2020) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  May 7, 2020  

En Banc Opinion:  982 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2020)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  December 3, 2020

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Graber, McKeown, Rawlinson, Callahan, Murguia, Watford, Bennett, Collins, Bress, and Bumatay

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court's summary judgment in favor of government defendants in a case involving the questionof when a spousal relationship must exist in order for a spouse to be eligible for derivative U-visa status.

Holding: Reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of government defendants in a case involving when a spousal relationship must exist for a spouse to be eligible for derivative U-visa status, the en banc court held that 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(f)(4) is not a permissible interpretation of the governing statute insofar as it requires that spouses be married when the U-visa petition is filed because the statute plainly provides that a person need not have been married to the principal applicant at the time the application was filed, so long as the marriage exists when the principal applicant receives a U visa. 

 

Rojas v. FAA, No. 17-55036 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  927 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2019)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  948 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2020) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  January 30, 2020  

En Banc Opinion:  989 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2021)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  March 2, 2021

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Graber, Wardlaw, Rawlinson, Callahan, M. Smith, Ikuta, Watford, Hurwitz, Collins, and Bumatay 

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Federal Aviation Administration in a case concerning a Freedom of Information Act request.

Holding: The en banc court affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") in a plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") action seeking FAA agency records.

 

 

Lorenzo-Lopez v. Garland, No. 15-72406 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  925 F.3d 396 (9th Cir. 2019)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  948 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2020)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  January 23, 2020 

En Banc Opinion:  2021 WL 2325134 (9th Cir. June 8, 2021)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  June 8, 2021

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and BERZON, RAWLINSON, CHRISTEN, WATFORD, BENNETT, MILLER, BADE, COLLINS, FORREST, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:   Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of petitioner's appeal from an Immigration Judge's denial of cancellation of removal for failure to meet the residence requirement.

Holding:  The en banc court stayed en banc proceedings and submission of this case pending the issuance of an opinion by the United States Supreme Court in Niz-Chavez v. Barr, No. 19-863.  Following the Supreme Court's issuanece of its opinon, Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), the en banc court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals fro reconsideration in light of Niz-Chavez. 

 

 

Torres v. Barr, No. 13-70653 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 925 F.3d 1360 (9th Cir. 2019)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  946 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2020) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  January 13, 2020 

En Banc Opinion:  2020 WL 5668478 (9th Cir., Sep. 24, 2020)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  September 24, 2020

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW, GOULD, RAWLINSON, CALLAHAN, M. SMITH, IKUTA, WATFORD, BRESS, FORREST, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:   Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dedcision affirming an immigration judge's determination that petitioner, a native and citizen of the Philippines who resides in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, was removable "as an intending immigrant without  . . . a valid entry document," 8 U.S.C. section 1182 (a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and was ineligible for cancellation fo removal. 

Holding:  Granting in part and denying in part Catherine Torres’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanding, the en banc court overruled Minto v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 619 (9th Cir. 2017), and held that Torres, who was present in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) when the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) became applicable there, was not removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(a)(i), which applies to noncitizens who do not possess a valid entry document “at the time of application for admission.” 

 

United States v. LozoyaNo. 17-50336 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 920 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2019)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  944 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2019) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  December 20, 2019 

En Banc Opinion:  2020 WL 7064635 (9th Cir., Dec. 3, 2020)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  December 3, 2020

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, BYBEE, IKUTA, NGUYEN, WATFORD, OWENS, BENNETT, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:   Appeal from conviction for assaulting a fellow passenger on a commercial flight from Minneapolis to Los Angeles.

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed a conviction for misdemeanor assault within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, in a case in which the defendant, who committed the assault on a commercial flight from Minneapolis to Los Angeles, argued that venue in the Central District of California was improper because the assault did not occur in airspace directly above the Central District.

  

United States v. Collazo, Nos. 15-50509, 16-50048, 16-50117, 16-50195, 16-50345

Order Taking Case En Banc:  933 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2019) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  September 19, 2019 

En Banc Opinion:   2020 WL 7052298 (9th Cir., Dec. 2, 2020)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  December 2, 2020 

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges W. Fletcher, Callahan, M. Smith, Ikuta, Nguyen, Watford, Hurwitz, Miller, Bade, and Bress, Circuit Judges 

Subject Matter:   Appeal from jury convictions and sentences for racketeering (RICO) conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.   

Holding: In appeals by five defendants who were convicted of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841, the en banc court clarified the requirements for conspiracy under § 846 and the facts thattrigger the penalties under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)–(B).

  

Ross v. Williams,  No. 16-16533

Three-Judge Panel Opinion896 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2018)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  920 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2019)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  April 16, 2019 

En Banc Opinion:   950 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2020)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  February 24, 2020 

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and W. FLETCHER, GOULD, PAEZ, BERZON, CALLAHAN, M. SMITH, Jr., IKUTA, NGUYEN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely California state prisoner Ronald Ross’s amended habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Holding: The en banc court reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely Ronald Ross’s amended habeas corpus petition challenging his Nevada state conviction for theft-related offenses, and remanded.

  

United States v. Broines, No. 16-10150

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 890 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2018)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  915 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2019)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  February 13, 2019 

En Banc Opinion:  929 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2019)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  July 9, 2019

Members of En Banc Court:   THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GRABER, McKEOWN, WARDLAW, BERZON, M. SMITH, Jr., IKUTA, CHRISTEN, NGUYEN, BENNETT, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court's imposition of a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile offender. 

Holding: The en banc court vacated the sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), which the district court reimposed at resentencing after having granted the defendant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion following the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and remanded for consideration of the entirety of the defendant’s sentencing evidence. 

  

Young v. State of Hawaii, No. 12-17808

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 896 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2018)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  February 8, 2019 

En Banc Opinion2021 WL 1114180 (9th Cir. March 24, 2021)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  March 24, 2021

Members of En Banc Court:   Chief Judge Thomas, Judges O’Scannlain, McKeown, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Clifton, Bybee, Callahan, Ikuta, Friedland, and R. Nelson 
 
 Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court's dismissal of plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the County of Hawaii's denial of his application for a handgun license violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded firearm in public for self-defense.

Holding: The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action challenging Hawai‘i’s firearm licensing law, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 134-9(a), which requires that residents seeking a license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character, and must be “engaged in the protection of life and property.

 

DNC v. Hobbs, No. 18-15845

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 904 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 2018)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  911 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2019)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  January 2, 2019

En Banc Opinion:  948 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2020)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  January 27, 2020

Members of En Banc Court:   THOMAS, Chief Judge, and O'SCANNLAIN, W. FLETCHER, BERZON, RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, BYBEE, CALLAHAN, MURGUIA, WATFORD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s judgment, entered following a bench trial, in an action challenging under the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, two state of Arizona election practices:  (1) Arizona’s requirement that in-person voters cast their ballots in their assigned precinct, which Arizona enforces by not counting ballots cast in the wrong precinct; and (2) House Bill 2023, which makes it a felony for third parties to collect early ballots from voters, unless the collector falls into one of several exceptions.  

Holding: The en banc court reversed the district court’s judgment following a bench trial in favor of defendants, the Arizona Secretary of State and Attorney General in their official capacities, in an action brought by the Democratic National Committee and others challenging, first, Arizona’s policy of wholly discarding, rather than counting or partially counting, ballots cast in the wrong precinct; and, second, House Bill 2023, a 2016 statute criminalizing the collection and delivery of another person’s ballot.

 

 

Marinelarena v. Sessions, No. 14-72003

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 869 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2017)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  886 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2018)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  March 29, 2018

En Banc Opinion:  930 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2019)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  July 18, 2019

Members of En Banc Court:  THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA, GRABER, W. FLETCHER, BERZON, RAWLINSON, BYBEE, M. SMITH, Jr., IKUTA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:   Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision finding petitioner Aracely Marinelarena ineligible for cancellation of removal because she had failed to meet her burden of proof to show that her conviction was not for a disqualifying controlled substance offense.   

Holding:  Granting Aracely Marinelarena’s petition for review, reversing a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanding, the en banc court overruled Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) and held that, in the context of eligibility for cancellation of removal, a petitioner's state law conviction does not bar relief where the record is ambiguous as to whether the conviction constitutes a disqualifying predicate offense. 

 

Ibrahim v. US Dep't of Homeland Security, Nos. 14-16161+

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 835 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  878 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  December 29, 2017

En Banc Opinion:  912 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2019)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  January 2, 2019

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges McKeown, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Berzon, Callahan, M. Smith, N.R. Smith, Christen, Nguyen, and Watford

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). 

Holding:  The en banc court reversed the district court, vacated the award of attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and remanded with instructions to recalculate the fees for the civil rights law firm that represented Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim in her successful challenge to her inclusion on the Transportation Security Administration’s "No Fly" list.