9th Cir.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Every decision we've summarized from United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Mar 19 2026
2:23-cv-00811-SPG-JPR Unpublished

LINDSEY NIKOLA v. PETER FOLEY and UNITED STATES SKI & SNOWBOARD

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of general jurisdiction claims but reversed its dismissal of specific jurisdiction over certain tort claims against USA Ski & Snowboard and Peter Foley. The court held that California courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants regarding sexual harassment and negligence claims arising from training camps held in the state.

Mar 19 2026
2:24-cv-00417-SAB Unpublished

JUN DAM v. MARK D. WALDRON, Chapter 7 Trustee; Ms. PAMELA MARIE EGAN Esquire Bankruptcy Counsel; POTOMAC LAW GROUP, PLLC; GIGA WATT BANKRUPTCY ESTATE

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Jun Dam's claims against a bankruptcy trustee and counsel, ruling that Dam lacked prudential standing to assert third-party rights. However, the court vacated the dismissal with prejudice, instructing the district court to dismiss the claims without prejudice due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Mar 19 2026
3:18-cv-07826-VC Unpublished

Alice Helen Brown v. Police Officer Ethan Miller and State of California, County of Del Norte, City of Crescent City, Crescent City Manager Eric Wier, Crescent City Police Depar...

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment in a Fourth Amendment traffic stop case, holding that an officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant to the constitutional reasonableness of a stop. The court further ruled that the plaintiff waived any challenge to the bill of costs by failing to object in the district court.

Mar 19 2026
3:24-cv-00812- Published

Sandler v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration, holding that a severability clause does not negate a clear and unmistakable delegation of validity challenges to an arbitrator. The court ruled that federal law, not state law, governs the interpretation of such delegation clauses under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Mar 18 2026
3:23-cv-00707- Published

Daniele Rae Powley v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of Social Security disability benefits, holding that the Administrative Law Judge failed to resolve significant inconsistencies between job-number evidence provided by a vocational expert and contrary evidence submitted by the claimant. The court clarified that when a claimant produces probative data using sources frequently relied upon by the agency, the ALJ must explicitly address and resolve the discrepancy rather than relying on general deference to the expert's experience.

Mar 18 2026
3:17-cr-00257- Published

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAVID PAUL MARTINEZ

The Ninth Circuit affirmed convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), ruling that the federal ban on firearm possession by domestic violence misdemeanants is constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court held that the statute aligns with historical traditions of disarming dangerous classes and does not require individualized findings of future dangerousness for each offender.

Mar 18 2026
3:24-cv-00357-AN Unpublished

JOHN KAPUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit, ruling that a plaintiff's acceptance of a settlement check for property damage constituted a complete release of all claims arising from the same accident. The court held that the government's waiver of sovereign immunity did not apply because the plaintiff had already barred the personal injury claim by accepting the settlement terms.

Mar 18 2026
21-70088 Unpublished

I.V.Z. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of an immigration order because the petitioner failed to specifically argue the dispositive legal elements of his asylum and withholding of removal claims. The court held that the petitioner forfeited review of the nexus and government protection determinations by not addressing them distinctly in his opening brief.