1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Refugee ban can’t be enforced against those…

Immigration Law

Refugee ban can’t be enforced against those who received conditional approval, 9th Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 26, 2025, 2:29 pm CDT

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to stop approving new refugees for U.S. admission during a legal challenge but said the government can’t keep out refugees who received conditional approval before the resettlement program was halted Jan. 20.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled on the government’s emergency motion in a March 25 order, report the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times and a March 25 press release.

In a Feb. 25 decision, U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the Western District of Washington had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, according to prior coverage by the New York Times. Whitehead said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their argument that the order was an “effective nullification of congressional will.”

On Monday evening, Whitehead issued a second preliminary injunction that orders the government to reinstate canceled cooperative agreements with resettlement agencies, according to another March 25 press release.

The legal challenge was filed by the International Refugee Assistance Project on behalf of Church World Service; HIAS, a Jewish resettlement agency; Lutheran Community Services Northwest; and nine people affected by the ban.

“The court affirmed that the government must continue processing and admitting eligible refugees whose lives were upended by President Trump’s refugee ban,” said Melissa Keaney, senior supervising attorney for litigation at the International Refugee Assistance Project, in a press release. “We welcome this continued relief for tens of thousands of refugees who will now have the opportunity to restart their lives in the United States and look forward to arguing this case in full.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. County can’t prevent chartered deportation…

Immigration Law

County can’t prevent chartered deportation flights at airport, 9th Circuit rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 4, 2024, 9:02 am CST

King County in Washington can’t prevent the federal government from using a Seattle-area airport for chartered deportation flights, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled last week.

The appeals court ruled for the U.S. government in a Nov. 29 decision, report Law360 and the Associated Press.

At issue was a 2019 executive order banning the servicing of deportation flights chartered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the King County International Airport in Washington. The order by King County executive Dow Constantine applied to fixed-base operators signing future leases at the airport, which is also known as Boeing Field.

Fixed-based operators lease space from Boeing Field and provide services to charter flights that include fueling, landing stairs, lavatory maintenance and aircraft parking, the 9th Circuit explained.

The appeals court said the order was invalid for two reasons.

First, the order violated the supremacy clause’s intergovernmental immunity doctrine that prohibits states from interfering with or controlling the operations of the federal government.

“The executive order effectively grants King County the ‘power to control’ ICE’s transportation and deportation operations, forcing ICE either to stop using Boeing Field or to use government-owned planes there,” the appeals court said.

Second, the order violated a contract agreement signed when the federal government transferred ownership of the airport back to King County at the end of World War II. The agreement gave the United States the right to nonexclusive use of the landing area without charge.

Judge Daniel A. Bress, a 2019 appointee of then-President Donald Trump, wrote the opinion.

King County revised its executive order after a federal judge ruled for the federal government last year, according to the AP. It bans King County from using its resources to aid deportation flights beyond what federal law requires.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 9th Circuit allows 2 transgender girls to…

LGBTQ Legal Issues

9th Circuit allows 2 transgender girls to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 12, 2024, 11:07 am CDT

A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that two transgender girls in Arizona should be allowed to play on school sports teams that are consistent with their gender identity.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco said the transgender plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the ban violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The appeals court banned enforcement of Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act against the girls while litigation continues. The law bans those who are identified as men at birth from playing on women’s interscholastic or intramural sports teams from kindergarten through graduate school.

The author of the Sept. 9 opinion is Judge Morgan Christen, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

On its face, the law discriminates based on transgender status, the appeals court said. As applied to the girls, the law does not survive strict scrutiny, the 9th Circuit concluded.

“The act’s transgender ban applies not only to all transgender women and girls in Arizona, regardless of circulating testosterone levels or other medically accepted indicia of competitive advantage, but also to all sports, regardless of the physical contact involved, the type or level of competition or the age or grade of the participants,” Christen wrote. “Heightened scrutiny does not require narrow tailoring, but it does require a substantial relationship between the ends sought and the discriminatory means chosen to achieve them.”

The girls had not gone through male puberty, were taking puberty-blocking medication and were undergoing hormone therapy. The opinion says their ages are 11 and 15, while Courthouse News Service said they are 12 and 16.

The 9th Circuit upheld district court findings that before puberty, there are no significant differences in athletic performance between boys and girls, and that transgender girls who receive puberty-blocking medication do not have an athletic advantage over other girls.

The appellants were Arizona’s superintendent of public instruction and several state lawmakers. They had argued that the district court wrongly treated as insignificant small differences in athletic ability between boys and girls before puberty.

But the appeals court said the appellants overlooked findings that small differences identified in some studies “have not been shown to be attributable to biological rather than sociological factors.”

The girls were represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a nonprofit public interest law firm, according to a Sept. 9 press release.

Rachel Berg, a lawyer with the group, told Tuscon.com that the ruling applies only to the plaintiffs, but it is crucial for others in the same situation.

“The 9th Circuit recognized that the law is unconstitutional because it’s a categorical ban on all transgender girls from playing on school sports teams,” Berg said. “It does so regardless of their individual circumstances. The 9th Circuit recognized that just because somebody is transgender tells you nothing about whether they have an athletic advantage.”

Tom Horne, the Arizona schools chief, told Tucscon.com that the 9th Circuit “is very left wing,” and the appellants will have to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if they want to win.

The Associated Press also has coverage of the decision.

The case is Doe v. Horne.

See also:

Transgender girl can stay on team, for now, after SCOTUS denial; action comes as US proposes new Title IX rule

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 9th Circuit revives suit to register racehorse…

First Amendment

9th Circuit revives suit to register racehorse as ‘Malpractice Meuser,’ thought to be lawyer jab

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 28, 2024, 2:51 pm CST

A racehorse owner who claims that a First Amendment right to register the name of his thoroughbred as “Malpractice Meuser” can proceed with his federal lawsuit as a result of a federal appeals court’s decision.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled for plaintiffs Jerry Jamgotchian and Theta Holdings in a Feb. 26 decision.

Law360 has coverage, while the Legal Profession Blog published opinion highlights.

“Malpractice Meuser” is a name apparently inspired by a Kentucky lawyer, according to prior coverage by the Louisville Courier Journal.

The 9th Circuit said a decision against Malpractice Meuser by the California Horse Racing Board did not bar the federal court suit alleging a First Amendment violation under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. The decision was written by Judge Daniel A. Bress, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.

Horses are barred from racing in California unless they are registered with a private group called the Jockey Club of New York. The group refused to register Malpractice Meuser, citing a rule that bars horse names “designed to harass, humiliate or disparage a specific individual.”

The Jockey Club of New York thought that Malpractice Meuser was named after a Kentucky equine lawyer who is an attorney for racehorse trainer Bob Baffert, according to the Louisville Courier Journal. Jamgotchian also named one of his horses “Bad Test Bob,” apparently referring to positive drug tests for Baffert’s top horses.

The California Horse Racing Board had affirmed that Malpractice Meuser could not race in the state unless registered by the Jockey Club of New York. The board also ruled that it had no jurisdiction to decide Jamgotchian’s First Amendment claim.

The racing board proceedings don’t bar the Section 1983 case because the board lacked jurisdiction to decide the First Amendment issues, the 9th Circuit said. Jamgotchian didn’t seek review of the racing board decision in state court, but that didn’t bar the federal suit, either, the appeals court said.

The appeals court added that it was not reaching other arguments by the defendants.

The Louisville Courier Journal described Jamgotchian as “a man whose principles outweigh his profit motive, and an adversary with the perseverance of a pit bull.”

“This is just the right thing to do,” Jamgotchian told the Louisville Courier Journal. “People should have the right to name whatever they want, as long as it’s not obscene. You want to take a shot at somebody, take a shot at somebody.”

The case is Jamgotchian v. Ferraro.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 9th Circuit reinstates suit by now-grown-up…

Civil Procedure

9th Circuit reinstates suit by now-grown-up Nirvana album-cover baby

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 22, 2023, 11:37 am CST

A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit filed by a man who claimed that he was a victim of child pornography because he appeared naked on Nirvana’s 1991 grunge album cover Nevermind when he was a baby.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled Thursday that the suit by plaintiff Spencer Elden was not barred by the 10-year statute of limitations.

Law360, Reuters, Bloomberg Law and Courthouse News Service have coverage.

The appeals court ruled that the suit was not barred because it alleged that the 1991 album cover was republished, including in 2021, constituting a new personal injury.

The photo showed Elden, then 4 months old, naked in a pool floating toward a dollar bill on a hook. Elden sued under a federal law authorizing civil suits for personal-injury damages for victims of child pornography.

Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote the opinion, Elden v. Nirvana.

The statute requires the suit to be filed 10 years after a plaintiff reasonably discovers either the violation or the injury that forms the basis for the claim. A second provision provides an alternative, allowing suits to be filed within 10 years of a victim’s 18th birthday, which isn’t at issue in the case.

“If a victim learns a defendant has distributed child pornography and does not sue, but then later learns the defendant has done so again many years later, the statute of limitations [in the law] does not prevent the plaintiff from bringing a claim based on that new injury,” Ikuta wrote.

U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the Central District of California had tossed the suit in September 2022 for being filed too late.

Defendants in the suit included surviving band members, the estate of Kurt Cobain and Cobain’s widow, Courtney Love.

See also:

“Judge gives ‘Nirvana Baby’ ‘one last opportunity’ to revive lawsuit over child porn, trafficking claims”