Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Doyle v. Medford, No. 07-35753, involved an action alleging that a city's policy of denying health insurance coverage to retirees violated their due process rights. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that, under the Oregon Supreme Court's interpretation of Or. Rev. Stat. section 243.303, neither that statute nor Resolution No. 5715 created a protected property interest.
James v. Rowlands, No. 08-16642, concerned an action claiming that defendants violated plaintiff's substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to notify him of their investigation into allegations that his daughter had been molested and that someone had coerced her to change her testimony in the trial that followed. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, on the grounds that 1) plaintiff had no clearly established constitutional right to be informed of the molestation investigation or of the attempts to coerce his daughter to change her testimony; 2) plaintiff's right to the information at issue was not clearly established and the officials were therefore entitled to qualified immunity; and 3) the officials did not violate plaintiff's procedural due process rights.
Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., No. 08-55028, involved an action claiming that Cingular Wireless, after its merger with AT&T, disregarded its obligations under plaintiff's phone service contract with AT&T by failing to provide adequate service coverage and requiring plaintiff to sign a different contract with defendant if he desired to get the service that AT&T had contracted to provide under the first agreement, and that Cingular misrepresented and omitted key facts about the consequence of the merger to the FCC. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint in part, on the grounds that 1) "all the advantages that only the nation's largest wireless company can provide" was a vague statement and provided nothing concrete upon which plaintiff could reasonably rely; 2) plaintiff failed to allege that he actually read or heard the alleged misrepresentations; and 3) violations of the common law of unfair competition and breach of contract did not alone violate California's Unfair Competition Law. However, the court reversed in part, holding that plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim that Cingular breached its contract with him.
World Wide Rush, LLC v. Los Angeles, No. 08-56454, involved a First Amendment action to enjoin the enforcement of certain Los Angeles billboard regulations. The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for plaintiffs, on the grounds that 1) the city's exceptions to the "Freeway Facing Sign Ban" did not undermine the city's asserted interests in enacting the Ban; and 2) the city council's authority to create exceptions to the "Supergraphic and Off-Site Sign Bans" was a permissible aspect of its inherent legislative discretion.
Segura v. Holder, No. 08-72062, concerned a petition for review of the BIA's order finding petitioner ineligible for relief under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court of appeals denied the petition, on the grounds that 1) petitioner failed to assert his challenge to the Immigration Judge's authority in his appeal to the BIA; and 2) because petitioner was erroneously admitted for permanent residence, he was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and thus was ineligible for section 212(c) relief.
In US v. Orozco-Acosta, No. 09-50192, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. following removal, holding that 1) any doubt arising from the possibility that the government's record search was less comprehensive than the search conducted for a Certificate of Non-Existence of Record was allayed by the introduction of defendant's own sworn statement that he had not applied for permission to re-enter, as well as the arresting agent's testimony that defendant admitted that he lacked documents allowing him to be in the U.S. legally; 2) nothing in Melendez-Diaz was clearly irreconcilable with Bahena-Cardenas's holding that a warrant of removal is nontestimonial because it was not made in anticipation of litigation; 3) the jury instructions as a whole adequately presented defendant's theory of the case; and 4) the district court imposed a sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range after carefully and rationally considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).