The Intra-Party Fight Among the Democratic Candidates Is Necessary and Healthy

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why the Democratic presidential candidates attacking each other over policy differences and other issues rather than unifying to oppose President Trump in the general election. Buchanan argues that, perhaps illogically, the infighting is essential and a healthy part of the process.

Read More

L. F. v. Lake Washington School District #414

Docket: 18-35792

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: Presnell

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district in an action brought by a parent, alleging that the school district violated his First Amendment rights by imposing a "Communication Plan," limiting his communications with school district employees regarding his daughters' education. The panel held that the Communication Plan did not violate plaintiff's First Amendment rights even if it restricted his speech; plaintiff failed to explain how the Communication Plan imposed unreasonable restrictions on his ability to share his concerns about his daughters' educational needs or any other topic; the Communication Plan addressed the manner in which plaintiff communicated with the school district – not the content of his speech or any viewpoints he wished to convey; and thus the panel agreed with the district court that the Communication Plan was a reasonable effort to manage a parent's relentless and unproductive communications with school district staff.

Courthouse News Service v. Planet

Docket: 16-55977

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: Kim McLane Wardlaw

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Applying Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986), the Ninth Circuit held that the press has a qualified right of timely access to newly filed civil nonconfidential complaints that attaches when the complaint is filed. However, the panel held that this right does not entitle the press to immediate access to those complaints. Furthermore, some reasonable restrictions resembling time, place, and manner regulations that result in incidental delays in access are constitutionally permitted where they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored and necessary to preserve the court's important interest in the fair and orderly administration of justice. In this case, CNS filed suit seeking immediate access to newly filed civil complaints from Ventura County Superior Court. The panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the no-access-before-process policy, but reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the scanning policy. The panel vacated the district court's injunction and award of fees, remanding for further consideration.

Juliana v. United States

Docket: 18-36082

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: Andrew David Hurwitz

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Environmental Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's interlocutory orders in an action brought by plaintiffs, an environment organization and individual plaintiffs, alleging climate-change related injuries caused by the federal government continuing to "permit, authorize, and subsidize" fossil fuel. In this case, a substantial evidentiary record documents that the federal government has long promoted fossil fuel use despite knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change, and that failure to change existing policy may hasten an environmental apocalypse. The panel first rejected the government's contention that plaintiffs' claim must proceed, if at all, under the Administrative Procedure Act. Although plaintiffs had concrete and particularized injuries and the district court properly found the Article III causation requirement satisfied, the panel reluctantly concluded that plaintiffs' injuries were not redressable by an Article III court. The panel held that it was beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement plaintiffs' requested remedial plan. Rather, the panel stated that plaintiffs' impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government. Accordingly, the panel remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.

United States v. Soto-Barraza

Dockets: 15-10586, 15-10589

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: Sandra S. Ikuta

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendants' convictions for first degree murder of a Border Patrol agent, conspiracy to interfere with and attempted interference with commerce by robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, and assault on a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. The panel held that defendants were properly extradited in accordance with the terms of the United States's treaty with Mexico; the jury instructions for the Hobbs Act offenses were not plainly erroneous; defendants' argument that the instructions constituted a constructive amendment of the indictment was without merit; and the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendants took a substantial step toward commission of the robbery offense. In a concurrently-filed memorandum opinion, the panel vacated defendants' convictions for carrying and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

Medina Tovar v. Zuchowski

Docket: 18-35072

Opinion Date: January 17, 2020

Judge: N. R. Smith

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

USCIS permissibly construed the statutory phrase "accompanying, or following to join" in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U)(ii) when it adopted its regulation, 8 C.F.R. 214.14(f)(4), requiring that a spouse's qualifying relationship exist at the time of the initial U-visa petition and that the qualifying relationship continues throughout the adjudication of the derivative petition. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to government defendants, according Chevron deference to USCIS's interpretation of the statute in enacting the regulation. Given the deference to the agency to impose regulations interpreting (and gap filling) the immigration statutes, the panel held that the requirement was a reasonable interpretation. The panel also held that the equal protection clause has not been violated, because children and spouses were not similarly situated and distinction between nonimmigrant derivative spouses was rationally based.