May 14, 2026

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). 

Baird v. Bonta, No. 24-565

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 163 F.4th 723 (9th Cir. 2026)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 172 F.4th 1105 (9th Cir. 2026)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: April 15, 2026

Status: Calendared June 3, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Seattle, Washington

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of California Attorney General Rob Bonta in Mark Baird’s civil rights lawsuit challenging, under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, California’s restrictions on the open carry of firearms.

King v. Villegas, No. 23-1713

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 156 F.4th 979 (9th Cir. 2025)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 171 F.4th 1163 (9th Cir. 2026)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: April 3, 2026

Status: Calendared June 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Seattle, Washington

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a state prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).  

Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi, No. 24-7536

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 160 F.4th 991 (9th Cir. 2025)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 167 F.4th 1069 (9th Cir. 2026)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: February 10, 2026

Status: Calendared June 2, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Seattle, Washington 

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter:   Petition for review challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling upholding a decision by an Immigration Judge ordering petitioners' removal to Peru and denying their requests for relief from removal.

International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. NLRB, No. 23-632

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 140 F.4th 1170 (9th Cir. 2025)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 2025 WL 3639284 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: December 16, 2025

Status: Argued and submitted March 24, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Pasadena, California

Members of En Banc Court: Chief Judge Murguia, Judges Gould, M. Smith, Christen, Bade, Lee, Bress, VanDyke, Koh, H.A. Thomas, and Mendoza

Subject Matter: Petitions for review and cross-petition for enforcement of the National Labor Relations Board's order directing the International Longshore and Warehouse Union to cease and desist from pursuing maintenance work for SSA Terminals at Terminal 5 in the Port of Seattle.

Rhode v. Bonta, No. 24-542

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:   145 F.4th 1090 (9th Cir. 2025)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  159 F.4th 1170 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  December 1, 2025

Status:  Argued and submitted March 25, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. in Pasadena, California

Members of En Banc Court: Chief Judge Murguia, Judges Bybee, M. Smith, Bennett, R. Nelson, Miller, Bade, Collins, VanDyke, Koh, and Sung

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s permanent injunction barring California from enforcing its ammunition sales background check provisions, which require firearms owners to complete background checks before each ammunition purchase. 

Phillips v. Goldman (In re Gilman), No. 24-2249

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  Not applicable 

Order Taking Case En Banc:  158 F.4th 1082 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: November 7, 2025

En Banc Opinion: 2026 WL 1257457 (9th Cir. May 7, 2026)

Date of En Banc Opinion: May 7, 2026

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, GOULD, RAWLINSON, BYBEE, CHRISTEN, NGUYEN, OWENS, BRESS, FORREST, JOHNSTONE, and de ALBA

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s the district court's order affirming in part and reversing in part the bankruptcy court's dismissal of a complaint brought by creditors Tammy R. Phillips and Tammy R. Phillips, APLC, against Amy L. Goldman, chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Kevin Harry Goldman.  

Holding: The en banc court (1) reversed the district court’s decision upholding the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an adversary proceeding based on a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee’s immunity from allegations that she failed to preserve and safeguard estate assets, and (2) remanded for the bankruptcy court to consider the trustee’s remaining arguments for dismissal.

State of Oregon v. Trump, Nos. 25-6268, 25-7194

Three-Judge Panel Order:  2025 WL 3008050 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2025)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  2025 WL 3013134 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: October 28, 2025  

Status: Defendants-Appellants' motion to dismiss granted.  2026 WL 443722 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2026)  

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s permanent injunction barring Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Department of Defense, Kristi Noem, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, from implementing certain memoranda federalizing and deploying members of the National Guard in Oregon.  

United States v. $1,106,775.000 in U.S. Currency, No. 22-16499

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 131 F.4th 710 (9th Cir. 2025)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 2025 WL 3011842 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: October 28, 2025

Status: Argued and submitted 1:00 p.m. on January 14, 2026, in Pasadena, California

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, WARDLAW, CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, OWENS, FRIEDLAND, MILLER, BRESS, SANCHEZ, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s orders (1) striking Oak Porcelli’s claim opposing the United States government’s complaint for civil forfeiture against $1,106,775 in currency that Drug Enforcement Agency officers seized following Porcelli’s traffic stop; and (2) granting the government a default judgment of civil forfeiture against the currency. 

Detrich v. Thornell, No. 08-99001

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 677 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2012)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 696 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 2012)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: October 3, 2012

Original En Banc Opinion: 740 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2013)

Status: Argued and submitted 9:30 a.m. on January 14, 2026, in Pasadena, California

Members of En Banc Court:  MURGUIA, S.R. THOMAS, GRABER, W. FLETCHER, GOULD, BEA, CHRISTEN, NGUYEN, OWENS, BADE, and LEE

Subject Matter: Appeal following the en banc court's limited remand to the district court. The en banc court granted a motion to remand this appeal for the district court to rule on a motion, made under Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), by a petitioner challenging his conviction and capital sentence for murder and kidnapping.  

Yukutake v. Lopez, No. 21-16756

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 130 F.4th 1077 (9th Cir. 2025)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 144 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: July 28, 2025

Status: Argued and submitted March 24, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Pasadena, California

Members of En Banc Court: Chief Judge Murguia, Judges Wardlaw, Nguyen, Owens, R. Nelson, Bade, Bress, Forrest, VanDyke, Sanchez, and H.A. Thomas

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s summary judgment for Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa in their action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Attorney General of Hawaii from enforcing two provisions of Hawaii’s firearms laws on the ground that the provisions violate the Second Amendment.

Montejo-Gonzalez v. Bondi, No. 21-304

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 119 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  141 F.4th 1334 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: July 8, 2025

En Banc Opinion: 166 F.4th 851 (9th Cir. 2026)

Date of En Banc Opinion: February 5, 2026

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and CALLAHAN, CHRISTEN, NGUYEN, FRIEDLAND, R. NELSON, KOH, SUNG, H.A. THOMAS, MENDOZA, Jr., and DESAI, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:  Petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals order upholding immigration judge's denial of petitioners' motion to reopen their removal proceedings.  

Holding:  Granting Claudia Elena Montejo-Gonzalez’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision, the en banc court held that the immigration judge and the BIA abused their discretion in denying reopening of her in-absentia removal order and those of her children, and remanded.

Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lopez, No. 21-56295

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  124 F.4th 605 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  138 F.4th 1102 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: June 4, 2025

En Banc Opinion: 173 F.4th 1070 (9th Cir. 2026)

Date of En Banc Opinion: April 22, 2026

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW, CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, OWENS, R. NELSON, MILLER, COLLINS, VANDYKE, KOH, and SUNG, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City of Oxnard, California, in a case in which Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc., challenged certain campaign finance limitations in the Oxford City Code as a violation of the First Amendment.  

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Oxnard in a case in which Moving Oxnard Forward, a political advocacy nonprofit organization, challenged the constitutionality of certain campaign finance limitations for municipal elections included in the Oxnard Government Accountability and Ethics Act.

United States v. Atherton, No. 21-30266

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 106 F.4th 888 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 134 F.4th 1009 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: April 24, 2025

Status: Argued and submitted September 9, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in San Francisco, California; Submission of this case is VACATED pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Hunter v. United States, No. 24-1063.

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW, BERZON, R. NELSON, MILLER, BADE, COLLINS, FORREST, SUNG, JOHNSTONE, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court's sentence imposed on Keith Atherton, whose plea agreement contained an appeal waiver with certain exceptions.

United States v. Gomez, No. 23-435

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 115 F.4th 987 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 133 F.4th 1083 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: April 14, 2025

En Banc Opinion: 2026 WL 90274 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026)

Date of En Banc Opinion: January 13, 2026

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GOULD, M. SMITH, Jr., NGUYEN, R. NELSON, MILLER, COLLINS, KOH, SUNG, H.A. THOMAS, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s sentence imposing a career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 on the ground that defendant's prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) was a “crime of violence.”

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed the district court’s judgment in a case in which the district court found that Jesus Ramiro Gomez, who pleaded guilty to distribution of methamphetamine, was subject to a career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) because his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) was a crime of violence—a classification Gomez did not challenge until his opening brief on appeal.

Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans v. Mayes, No. 22-16490 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  117 F.4th 1165 (9th Cir. 2024) 

Order Taking Case En Banc: 130 F.4th 1177 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: March 18, 2025

Status: Argued and submitted Wednesday, June 25, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Seattle, Washington

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and CALLAHAN, IKUTA, BENNETT, R. NELSON, BRESS, VANDYKE, SUNG, H.A. THOMAS, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining two Arizona election law amendments aimed at curtailing the risk of unlawful voting: (1) a provision that allows the cancellation of a voter’s registration if a county receives confirmation from another county that the voter has moved and is registered in that new county; and (2) a provision that makes it a felony to knowingly provide a mechanism for voting to another person registered in another state.

Ratha v. Rubicon Resources, LLC, No. 23-55299

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 111 F.4th 946 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  129 F.4th 1212 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: March 4, 2025

En Banc Opinion: 2026 WL 480006 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2026)

Date of En Banc Opinion: February 20, 2026

Members of En Banc Court:  MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GRABER, GOULD, CALLAHAN, M. SMITH, Jr., BADE, BRESS, SUNG, MENDOZA, Jr., JOHNSTONE, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) for relief from judgment in an action under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. 

Holding:  Reversing the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from summary judgment in favor of defendant Rubicon Resources, LLC, and remanding for further proceedings in a civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), the en banc court held that an amendment to the statute, clarifying that defendants are civilly liable when they attempt to benefit, but do not succeed in benefitting, from human trafficking, has retroactive effect.  

Gopher Media, LLC v. Malone, No. 24-2626 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: Not applicable

Order Taking Case En Banc:  129 F.4th 1196 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: March 3, 2025

En Banc Opinion: 154 F.4th 696 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of En Banc Opinion: October 9, 2025

Members of En Banc Court:  MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and CALLAHAN, M. SMITH, Jr., FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, COLLINS, LEE, BRESS, BUMATAY, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s denial of a motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute.  

Holding:  Overruling Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003), and dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the en banc court held that a district court’s denial of a motion to strike under the California anti-SLAPP statute does not satisfy the requirements for an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine

United States v. Rivera-Valdez, No. 21-30177

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 105 F.4th 1118 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  125 F.4th 991 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  January 14, 2025 

En Banc Opinion:   2025 WL 2672555 (9th Cir. Sep. 18, 2025)

Date of En Banc Opinion: September 18, 2025

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Murguia, Judges Gould, Callahan, M. Smith, Ikuta, Bennett, Miller, Forrest, Sanchez, H.A. Thomas, and Desai

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s denial of Leopoldo Rivera-Valdes’s motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 in a case in which Rivera-Valdes, who failed to appear at his 1994 deportation proceeding, argued that immigration authorities violated his due process rights by ordering him deported in absentia despite the notice of the deportation hearing being returned as undeliverable or unclaimed.  

Holding:  The en banc court vacated the district court’s denial of Leopoldo Rivera-Valdes’s motion to dismiss an indictment alleging that he reentered the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and remanded for further proceedings, in a case in which Rivera-Valdes asserts that the underlying removal order was invalid because he was not afforded “reasonably calculated” notice of his removal hearing when the Government learned that its notice sent by certified mail was returned unclaimed.

Health Freedom Defense Fund,, Inc. v. Carvalho, No. 22-55908 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 104 F.4th 715 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  127 F.4th 750 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: February 4, 2025

En Banc Opinion: 2025 WL 2167401 (9th Cir. July 31, 2025)

Date of En Banc Opinion: July 31, 2025

Members of En Banc Court: Chief Judge Murguia, Judges Wardlaw, Callahan, Owens, Bennett, Bade, Collins, Lee, Forrest, Mendoza, and Desai

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ action alleging that the COVID-19 vaccination policy of the Los Angeles Unified School District—which, until twelve days after oral argument, required employees to get the COVID-19 vaccination or lose their jobs—interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.  

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated, violated plaintiffs’ substantive due process and equal protection rights.  

Parker v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 22-35695

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 112 F.4th 687 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 122 F.4th 1072 (9th Cir. 2024)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: December 12, 2024 

En Banc Opinion: 2025 WL 1404273 (9th Cir. May 15, 2025)

Date of En Banc Opinion: May 15, 2025

Members of En Banc Court: Chief Judge Murguia, Judges Graber, Wardlaw, Owens, Forrest, Sung, H.A. Thomas, Mendoza, Desai, Johnstone, and de Alba

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s judgment in favor of BNSF Railway Company in an action brought under the anti-retaliation provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act by Curtis Rookaird through his estate representative Paul Parker.

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed the district court’s judgment after a bench trial in favor of BNSF Railway Co., the defendant in a retaliation action under the Federal Railroad Safety Act.

United States v. Duarte, No. 22-50048

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  101 F.4th 657 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  108 F.4th 786 (9th Cir. 2024)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: July 17, 2024

En Banc Opinion: 2025 WL 1352411 (9th Cir. May 9, 2025)

Date of En Banc Opinion: May 9, 2025

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW, RAWLINSON, IKUTA, OWENS, R. NELSON, COLLINS, VANDYKE, H.A. THOMAS, MENDOZA, Jr., and DESAI, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from criminal conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, on Second Amendment grounds. 

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed Steven Duarte’s conviction for felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

United States v. Moyle/Idaho, Nos. 23-35440, 23-35450

Three-Judge Panel Order: 83 F.4th 1130 (9th Cir. 2023)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 82 F.4th 1296 (9th Cir. 2023)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: October 10, 2023

Status: Appeals dismissed pursuant to the parties' stipulated agreement 

Members of En Banc Court:  MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GOULD, CALLAHAN, M. SMITH, Jr., OWENS, MILLER, BRESS, FORREST, VANDYKE, KOH, and MENDOZA, Jr., Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining Idaho Code section 18-622, which makes it a crime for a healthcare provider to perform an abortion unless, among a few other exceptions, “the physician determine[s], in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”

Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles, Nos. 21-55994, 21-55995

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 96 F.4th 1209 (9th Cir. 2024) 

Order Taking Case En Banc:  106 F.4th 940 (9th Cir. 2024)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: July 8, 2024

En Banc Opinion: 2025 WL 1553910 (9th Cir. June 2, 2025)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  June 2, 2025

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and RAWLINSON, NGUYEN, R. NELSON, BADE, COLLINS, BRESS, BUMATAY, H.A. THOMAS, MENDOZA, Jr., and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department, and Officer McBride in plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the shooting death of Daniel Hernandez during a confrontation with LAPD officers. 

Holding: The en banc court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment for the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department, and Officer Toni McBride in an action alleging that McBride used excessive force when she shot Daniel Hernandez six times, the final round killing him, after he ignored her repeated commands to stop moving toward her and drop his knife.