Aisha Johnson

Correspondent

Aisha Johnson

Federal courthouse correspondent, covers civil rights, employment discrimination, housing rights, and Second Amendment disputes.

Civil Rights & Constitutional

Decisions covered by Aisha Johnson

1,080 decisions
May 15 2026
9th Cir. 2:23-cv-06921-JAK-E Unpublished

Ocean S. v. County of Los Angeles

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to abstain under Younger v. Harris in a lawsuit by foster youth alleging systemic failures in Los Angeles County's care system. The court dismissed the appeal regarding standing as moot because the underlying complaint had been superseded by a later amended filing.

May 15 2026
5th Cir. 25-50380 Per Curiam

United States v. Guerra Licon

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant's conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm while vacating a portion of the written judgment due to a clerical error. The court ordered the written sentence to be amended to match the district court's oral pronouncement regarding concurrent sentencing.

May 14 2026
5th Cir. 25-20238 Per Curiam

Moccia v. Moccia

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to provide a transcript of the district court hearing. Without the transcript, the appellate court could not review the grounds for the dismissal of the underlying case.

May 14 2026
9th Cir. 23-15612 Unpublished

Zak Shimose v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 142

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se lawsuit challenging a labor union's actions and the National Labor Relations Board's General Counsel. The court held that the plaintiff failed to state valid claims regarding the duty of fair representation, First Amendment violations, and the General Counsel's authority.

May 14 2026
9th Cir. 23-99005 Published

Bradford v. Vang

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court judgment that had granted habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner challenging his first-degree murder conviction. The panel held that the state court's summary denial of the prisoner's claims was not objectively unreasonable under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.