United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals
Judgeships
Posts: 29
Judges: 29
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Mary Murguia
Active judges: Bridget S. Bade, Mark J. Bennett, Daniel Bress, Patrick J. Bumatay, Consuelo Maria Callahan, Morgan Christen, Daniel P. Collins, Roopali Desai, Danielle Forrest, Michelle T. Friedland, Ronald Gould, Sandra Ikuta, Anthony Johnstone, Lucy H. Koh, Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Sal Mendoza Jr., Eric D. Miller, Mary Murguia, Ryan D. Nelson, Jacqueline Nguyen, John B. Owens, Johnnie Rawlinson, Gabriel Sanchez, Milan Smith, Jennifer Sung, Holly Thomas, Lawrence VanDyke, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ana I. de Alba Senior judges: Carlos Bea, Marsha Berzon, Jay Bybee, William Canby, Richard Clifton, Ferdinand Francis Fernandez, William Fletcher, Susan Graber, Michael Hawkins, Andrew Hurwitz, Andrew Kleinfeld, Margaret McKeown, Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Richard Paez, Mary Schroeder, Barry Silverman, Randy Smith, Richard Tallman, A. Wallace Tashima, Sidney Thomas, Stephen Trott, John Clifford Wallace, Dorothy Wright Nelson

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a federal appellate court with appellate jurisdiction. It hears appeals from all of the circuit courts within its jurisdiction and its rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Ninth Circuit is the largest appellate court with 29 authorized judicial posts. Appeals are heard in the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, California, the Richard H. Chambers Courthouse in Pasadena, California, the Pioneer Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, and the William K. Nakamura Courthouse in Seattle, Washington.

One judge of the Ninth Circuit went on to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Anthony Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan (R).

This page contains the following information on the Ninth Circuit.

• A list of the court's current vacancies
• A list of the court's active and senior judges
• An overview of the court's jurisdiction
• Selected case management statistics
• A brief history of the court
• Case reversal statistics by the Supreme Court of the United States
• Noteworthy cases heard by the court
• Where the court is located
• Information about U.S. Courts of Appeals

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are no current vacancies on the Ninth Circuit, out of the court's 29 judicial positions.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominees for this court.

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Kim McLane Wardlaw	Bill Clinton (D)	August 3, 1998 -	University of California, Los Angeles, 1976	University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, 1979
Ronald Gould	Bill Clinton (D)	November 22, 1999 -	University of Pennsylvania, 1968	University of Michigan Law School, 1973
Johnnie Rawlinson	Bill Clinton (D)	July 26, 2000 -	North Carolina A&T State University, 1974	University of the Pacific, 1979
Consuelo Maria Callahan	George W. Bush (R)	May 28, 2003 -	Stanford University, 1972	University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, 1975
Milan Smith	George W. Bush (R)	May 18, 2006 -	Brigham Young University, 1966	University of Chicago Law School, 1969
Sandra Ikuta	George W. Bush (R)	June 23, 2006 -	University of California, Berkeley, 1976	University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, 1988
Mary Murguia	Barack Obama (D)	January 4, 2011 -	University of Kansas, 1982	University of Kansas, School of Law, 1985
Morgan Christen	Barack Obama (D)	January 11, 2012 -	University of Washington, 1983	Golden Gate University School of Law, 1986
Jacqueline Nguyen	Barack Obama (D)	May 14, 2012 -	Occidental College, 1987	University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, 1991
John B. Owens	Barack Obama (D)	April 2, 2014 -	University of California, Berkeley, 1993	Stanford Law School, 1996
Michelle T. Friedland	Barack Obama (D)	April 29, 2014 -	Stanford University, 1995	Stanford Law School, 2000
Mark J. Bennett	Donald Trump (R)	July 13, 2018 -	Union College, 1976	Cornell Law School, 1979
Ryan D. Nelson	Donald Trump (R)	October 18, 2018 -	Brigham Young University, 1996	Brigham Young University Law School, 1999
Eric D. Miller	Donald Trump (R)	March 4, 2019 -	Harvard University, 1996	University of Chicago Law School, 1999
Bridget S. Bade	Donald Trump (R)	April 1, 2019 -	Arizona State University, 1987	Arizona State University, College of Law, 1990
Daniel P. Collins	Donald Trump (R)	May 22, 2019 -	Harvard College, 1985	Stanford University, 1988
Kenneth Kiyul Lee	Donald Trump (R)	June 12, 2019 -	Cornell University, 1997	Harvard Law School, 2000
Daniel Bress	Donald Trump (R)	July 26, 2019 -	Harvard College, 2001	University of Virginia School of Law, 2005
Danielle Forrest	Donald Trump (R)	November 12, 2019 -	University of Idaho, 2001	University of Idaho College of Law, 2004
Patrick J. Bumatay	Donald Trump (R)	December 12, 2019 -	Yale University, 2000	Harvard Law School, 2006
Lawrence VanDyke	Donald Trump (R)	January 2, 2020 -	Montana State University, 1997	Harvard Law School, 2005
Lucy H. Koh	Joe Biden (D)	December 14, 2021 -	Harvard University, 1990	Harvard Law School, 1993
Jennifer Sung	Joe Biden (D)	December 20, 2021 -	Oberlin College, 1994	Yale Law School, 2004
Gabriel Sanchez	Joe Biden (D)	January 24, 2022 -	Yale College	Yale Law School
Holly Thomas	Joe Biden (D)	January 24, 2022 -	Stanford University	Yale Law School
Sal Mendoza Jr.	Joe Biden (D)	September 15, 2022 -	University of Washington, 1994	UCLA School of Law, 1997
Roopali Desai	Joe Biden (D)	October 3, 2022 -	University of Arizona, 2000	University of Arizona, 2005
Anthony Johnstone	Joe Biden (D)	May 5, 2023 -	Yale University, 1995	The University of Chicago, 1999
Ana I. de Alba	Joe Biden (D)	November 15, 2023 -	University of California, Berkeley	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

Below is a display of the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democrat appointed: 16
• Republican appointed: 13

Senior judges

Senior status is a classification for federal judges at all levels who are semi-retired. Senior judges are Article III judges who, having met eligibility through age and service requirements, continue to serve on federal courts while typically hearing a reduced number of cases. Some senior judges, however, elect to retain a full caseload after taking senior status. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, senior judges "typically handle about 15 percent of the federal courts' workload annually." The date listed under assumed office in the table below reflects the date that the judge took senior status.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Andrew Hurwitz			Princeton University, 1968	Yale Law School, 1972
Dorothy Wright Nelson	Jimmy Carter (D)	January 1, 1995 -	University of California, Los Angeles, 1950	University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, 1953
John Clifford Wallace	Richard Nixon (R)	April 8, 1996 -	San Diego State College, 1952	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1955
William Canby	Jimmy Carter (D)	May 23, 1996 -	Yale University, 1953	University of Minnesota Law School, 1956
Ferdinand Francis Fernandez	George H.W. Bush (R)	June 1, 2002 -	University of Southern California, 1958	University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, 1962
A. Wallace Tashima	Bill Clinton (D)	June 30, 2004 -	University of California, Los Angeles, 1958	Harvard Law School, 1961
Stephen Trott	Ronald Reagan (R)	December 31, 2004 -	Wesleyan University, 1962	Harvard Law School, 1965
Michael Hawkins	Bill Clinton (D)	February 12, 2010 -	Arizona State University, 1967	Arizona State University Law School, 1970
Andrew Kleinfeld	George H.W. Bush (R)	June 12, 2010 -	Wesleyan University, 1966	Harvard Law School, 1969
Mary Schroeder	Jimmy Carter (D)	December 31, 2011 -	Swarthmore College, 1962	University of Chicago Law School, 1965
Barry Silverman	Bill Clinton (D)	October 11, 2016 -	Arizona State University, 1973	Arizona State University Law School, 1976
Diarmuid O'Scannlain	Ronald Reagan (R)	December 31, 2016 -	St. John's University, 1957	Harvard Law School, 1963
Richard Clifton	George W. Bush (R)	December 31, 2016 -	Princeton University, 1972	Yale Law School, 1975
Richard Tallman	Bill Clinton (D)	March 3, 2018 -	University of Santa Clara, B. Sc., 1975	Northwestern University School of Law, 1978
Randy Smith	George W. Bush (R)	August 11, 2018 -	Brigham Young University, 1974	Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School, 1977
Carlos Bea	George W. Bush (R)	December 12, 2019 -	Stanford University, 1956	Stanford Law School, 1958
Jay Bybee	George W. Bush (R)	December 31, 2019 -	Brigham Young University, 1977	Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School, 1980
Richard Paez		December 13, 2021 -	Brigham Young University, 1969	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1972
Susan Graber		December 15, 2021 -	Wellesley College, 1969	Yale Law School, 1972
Marsha Berzon		January 12, 2022 -	Radcliffe College, 1966	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1973
William Fletcher		January 20, 2022 -	Harvard College, 1968	Yale Law School, 1975
Margaret McKeown		September 15, 2022 -	University of Wyoming, 1972	Georgetown University Law Center, 1975
Sidney Thomas		May 4, 2023 -	Montana State University, 1975	University of Montana School of Law, 1978

Senior judges by appointing political party

Below is a display of the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democrat appointed: 14
• Republican appointed: 9

Former chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in an Article III circuit or district court, or on the United States Court of International Trade, a judge must be in active service and hold seniority over the court's commissioned judges who are 64 years of age or under, have served one year or more, and have not previously served as chief judge.

In the event that no judge on the court meets those qualifications, the youngest judge in regular active service aged 65 years or more and who has served as a judge for one year or more shall become chief judge. If no judge meets those qualifications, the judge holding seniority in active service who has not served as chief before shall become the chief judge.

The chief judge serves for a term of seven years until another judge becomes eligible to serve in the position. No judge is permitted to serve as chief judge after reaching the age of 70 years unless no other judge is qualified to serve.

Unlike the chief justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of their term and does not create a vacancy on the court by the fact of their promotion.

On the United States Court of Federal Claims, the chief judge is selected by the president of the United States. The judge must be less than 70 years of age. A chief may serve until they reach age 70 or until another judge is designated by the president as the new chief judge. If the president selects a new chief judge, the former chief judge may continue active service on the court for the remainder of their appointed term.

Sidney Thomas - (2014-2021) Alex Kozinski - (2007-2014) Mary Schroeder - (2000-2007) Procter Hug - (1996-2000) John Clifford Wallace - (1991-1996) Alfred Goodwin - (1988-1991)

James R. Browning - (1976-1988) Richard Harvey Chambers - (1959-1976) Walter Pope - (1959) Albert Lee Stephens, Sr. - (1957-1959) William Denman - (1948-1957)

Former judges

For more information on the judges of the Ninth Circuit, see former federal judges of the Ninth Circuit.

Jurisdiction

Map of the Ninth Circuit. Click on a district to find out more about it.

The Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over cases heard in one of its subsidiary districts. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Elena Kagan is the circuit justice for the Ninth Circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

District of Alaska District of Arizona Central District of California Eastern District of California Northern District of California Southern District of California District of Hawaii

District of Idaho District of Montana District of Nevada District of Oregon Eastern District of Washington Western District of Washington

It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts:

• United States District Court for the District of Guam
• United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2024.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit caseload stats, 2010-2023
Year	Appeals Filed	Appeals Terminated	Pending Appeals	Terminations on the Merits (per Active Judge)	Procedural Terminations (per Active Judge)	Total Written Decisions (per Active Judge)	Number of Judgeships	Number of Sitting Senior Judges	Number of Vacant Judgeship Months	Median Time From Filing Notice of Appeal to Disposition
2010	11,999	13,471	14,504	516	238	162	29	20	41	16
2011	12,306	12,709	14,312	568	185	178	29	18	39	17
2012	12,707	13,148	14,007	647	110	215	29	18	26	15
2013	12,761	12,592	14,171	538	96	174	29	16	21	13
2014	11,311	11,378	14,200	486	70	154	29	16	7	12
2015	11,705	12,029	13,651	491	76	147	29	16	1	14
2016	11,405	11,866	13,152	488	82	150	29	16	15	15
2017	10,968	12,180	11,940	555	79	171	29	18	48	13
2018	10,502	11,065	11,379	505	65	157	29	19	84	11
2019	10,191	10,310	11,256	489	72	154	29	19	49	11
2020	10,455	10,341	11,365	440	68	142	29	20	0	13
2021	9,141	11,177	9,332	445	58	147	29	20	0	13
2022	8,268	9,924	7,676	339	44	109	29	23	0	13
2023	7,813	8,429	7,070	328	44	107	29	22	5	14
Average	10,824	11,473	12,001	488	92	155	29	19	24	14

History

Court history

The Ninth Circuit was created by the Evarts Act of 1891, which established nine circuit courts of appeal.

Judicial posts

The large size of the current court is due to the fact that both the population of the western states and the geographic jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit have increased since Congress created the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1891. The court was originally granted appellate jurisdiction over federal district courts in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. As new states and territories were added to the federal judicial hierarchy in the twentieth century, many of those in the West came under control of the Ninth Circuit: the newly acquired territory of Hawaii in 1900, Arizona upon its accession to statehood in 1912, the then-territory of Alaska in 1948, Guam in 1951, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) in 1977.

Year	Jurisdiction	Total population	Pop. as % of nat'l pop.	Number of active judgeships
1891	CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	2,087,000	3.3%	2
1900	CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	2,798,000	3.7%	3
1920	AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	7,415,000	6.7%	3
1940	AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	11,881,000	9.0%	7
1960	AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	22,607,000	12.6%	9
1980	AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	37,170,000	16.4%	23
2000	AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA	54,575,000	19.3%	28

Reversal rate

See also: SCOTUS case reversal rates (2007 - Present)

Since 2007, SCOTUS has released opinions in 1,250 cases. Of those, it reversed a lower court decision 891 times (71.3 percent) while affirming a lower court decision 347 times (27.8 percent).

In that time period, SCOTUS has decided 243 cases originating from the Ninth Circuit, affirming in 50 cases and reversing in 192 cases, for a reversal rate of 79 percent. As of the end of the 2023 term, of the Article III circuits—the ordinal circuits, the D.C. Circuit, and the Federal Circuit—the court with the lowest rate of overturned decisions is the Fourth Circuit at 62.1 percent.

Noteworthy cases

The following are noteworthy cases heard before this court. To suggest cases we should cover here, email us. To read opinions published by this court, click here.

• Three-judge panel upholds Oregon's low-carbon fuel standards (2018)

Click for summary→

On September 7, 2018, a three-judge panel upheld Oregon's low-carbon fuel standards, known as the Clean Fuels Program. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Trucking Associations, and the Consumer Energy Alliance—national trade associations—challenged the standards. The groups argued the standards discriminated against fuels produced outside Oregon and attempted to regulate out-of-state commerce. The panel ruled 2-1 that the program discriminated against fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions, not based on state of origin. The Oregon State Legislature approved the Clean Fuels Program in 2015. According to Oregon.gov, the program "is a critical component of Oregon’s plan to reduce greenhouse gases in the transportation sector" through using cleaner fuels, reducing the amount residents drive, and creating cleaner cars. Articles: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. O'Keeffe, September 7, 2018 Oregon.gov, "Oregon Clean Fuels Program," accessed September 10, 2018

• Voter-approved ballot measure banning high-capacity magazines is upheld by Ninth Circuit (2015)

Click for summary→

In 2000, the state of California banned the sale and manufacture of high-capacity firearms magazines out of concern for public safety. The city of Sunnyvale, California, banned the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds following a voter-approved ballot measure. The National Rifle Association (NRA) filed suit against the town, requesting that a judge prevent its enforcement. The NRA argued that the law would impact a citizen’s ability to arm and protect him or herself, a right granted by the Second Amendment. In March 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte refused to issue an order preventing enforcement of the law. Citizens in Sunnyvale had until March 6, 2014, to turn over magazines with a 10-round or greater capacity, or remove them from the city limits. An appeal of Judge Whyte’s decision went to the Ninth Circuit, and, on March 4, 2015, a three-judge panel consisting of Michael D. Hawkins, Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Barbara Lynn (sitting by designation) affirmed Judge Whyte’s ruling. The court, citing the United States Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, said that while a citizen has a right to bear arms in self-protection, some limits to that right are permissible, finding Sunnyvale’s law constitutional. Articles: CBS SFArea, "Federal Court Upholds Sunnyvale’s Ban On Gun Magazines That Can Hold More Than 10 Bullets," March 5, 2014 SF Bay, "Sunnyvale ammo ban upheld on appeal," March 4, 2015 Ninth Circuit, "Opinion," March 4, 2015 Ninth Circuit, "Oral Argument on Sunnyvale gun magazine ban"

• Judge finds NCIS search illegal (2014)

Click for summary→

U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) employee Steve Logan conducted a search of computer files being shared online in the state of Washington with the intention of finding evidence that members of the military were engaged in illegal activity. When Logan found a private citizen’s stash of child pornography, he turned the information over to Seattle police. In turn, the police furthered the investigation and eventually arrested and charged Michael Dreyer with possession of child pornography. Dreyer was ultimately convicted based, at least partly, on the evidence NCIS uncovered and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Dreyer appealed, claiming his motion to suppress the NCIS evidence, as well as evidence gathered based on that search, should have been granted, rather than denied. Dreyer's attorney said that the use of evidence gathered by NCIS rendered his conviction moot, since the Posse Comitatus Act prevents military bodies like the NCIS from participating in law enforcement activities directed at civilians. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed with Dreyer. Judge Marsha Berzon wrote for the majority. She stated that it is common knowledge that NCIS and other military groups conduct these types of searches regularly. She compared what Logan did here with other NCIS agents stopping drunk drivers and arresting them, only to turn them over to the local police for prosecution. The lone dissenter, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, said that to apply the exclusionary rule in cases like this should be the last resort; societal costs must be considered before excluding evidence. He was particularly scathing when writing how the majority decision benefited Dreyer, who possessed illegal child pornography in his home. Articles: Courthouse News, "Navy Guilty of Illegally Broad Online Searches," September 12, 2014 Seattle Times, "9th Circuit tosses child-porn evidence, cites Navy snooping," September 18, 2014

• Ninth Circuit strikes certain Arizona campaign rules for judicial candidates (2014)

Click for summary→

The Arizona code of judicial conduct stated that judicial candidates, individuals who have not yet been elected but are seeking office, may not engage in certain activity related to campaigning. The precluded activity included raising funds for their own campaign or other candidates, endorsing candidates, campaigning for others or giving speeches on behalf of other candidates. Though a federal district court judge upheld these provisions, the Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision, held that they were unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Judge Richard Paez said that these types of provisions run afoul of the First Amendment. Paez said the laws prevented a candidate from speaking out, which is their right. He said that states that wished to avoid a politicized judiciary should not allow for the election of judges. Judge Marsha Berzon concurred in the holding, but her concurrence emphasized that the majority holding applied only to judicial candidates, not incumbent judges running for re-election. Judge Richard Tallman dissented in part with the majority; he found that some of the code struck down was narrowly tailored, in particularly the two provisions on candidate campaigning. Articles: FindLaw, "En Banc Granted in Ariz. Judge's Campaign Funding Case," September 30, 2014 Courthouse News, "Would-Be Judge Gets 9th to Nix Campaign Rules," May 9, 2014 University of Denver Law School, "Ninth Circuit Rejects Campaign Restrictions for Judicial Candidates in Arizona," May 13, 2014

• Law firm wins rights to George Clinton songs (2014)

Click for summary→

The Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to require musician George Clinton to sign over the rights in several hit songs to a law firm. The law firm had obtained a judgment against Clinton for unpaid legal fees. After Clinton failed to pay, the firm sought a court’s help in executing on the judgment and requested the copyright to four songs. Clinton argued that his work was protected from involuntary transfer because the songs were exempt under Section 201(e) of the Copyright Act. That provision states that intellectual property cannot be unwillingly taken from an author if he or she has never transferred that property previously. The lower court found that the author of the songs was not, in fact, George Clinton; the author was actually Warner Bros. Clinton wrote and recorded the songs as part of a work-for-hire arrangement with the studio. He later sued and obtained the copyrights to the songs as an assignee, not an author. As a result, the lower court said the songs had been transferred previously by the author, Warner Bros., and were no longer protected by the provision in the Copyright Act. Clinton appealed the lower court’s ruling, and a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Judge Morgan Christen wrote for the panel, stating that the rights in the songs were Clinton’s personal property, even if he was not the author, and were therefore eligible to be seized to satisfy a judgment. Articles: National Law Review, "Funkadelic Master Sound Recordings Can Be Involuntarily Transferred to a Court-Appointed Receiver to Satisfy Judgment," August 7, 2014 Law360, "George Clinton Songs Are Fair Game In Fee Row: 9th Circ.," June 23, 2014

• Dismissal of jurors over sexual orientation is barred (2014) (GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories, 11-17357)	Click for summary→
On January 21, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, comprised of Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Marsha Berzon, and Senior Judge Mary Schroeder, ruled that peremptory strikes made by attorneys during jury selection may not be based on a juror's sexual orientation. In the underlying suit, drug companies GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) were involved in an antitrust dispute over the pricing of HIV medication. The case was heard by the Ninth Circuit on appeal from a decision previously made by Chief Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California. At trial, an attorney for Abbott used a peremptory strike to bar a gay man's service on the jury, seemingly due only to his sexual orientation. GSK's attorney raised a Batson challenge, meaning opposing counsel needed to provide a nondiscriminatory reason for the requested juror strike. Before this case, Batson challenges had only applied to race and gender. Wilken allowed Abbott's strike to stand, and after a jury verdict was issued, GSK appealed, claiming that a new trial was warranted due to Abbott's unconstitutionally permitted peremptory strike based on sexual orientation. Writing for the majority of the three-judge panel, Reinhardt concluded that Batson was applicable, because "permitting a strike based on sexual orientation would send the false message that gays and lesbians could not be trusted to reason fairly on issues of great import to the community or the nation." He further commented that "[t]o allow peremptory strikes because of assumptions based on sexual orientation is to revoke this civic responsibility, demeaning the dignity of the individual and threatening the impartiality of the judicial system."

• Bloggers have same protection as journalists from defamation suits (2014)

Click for summary→

Crystal Cox, author of the site obsidianfinancesucks.com, was sued by Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance, over statements she made on her website. Padrick and Obsidian claimed that the statements were defamatory in nature. The federal district court found for the plaintiffs on just one statement; the rest of Cox’s statements were dismissed as protected opinions. Cox contended she was a journalist, but the district court asked for proof before it would accept the argument. In the end, she could offer no proof, and Padrick and Obsidian were awarded $2.5 million in damages, which included punitive damages. Cox appealed the ruling. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled on January 17, 2014, in an opinion written by Judge Andrew Hurwitz, that bloggers have the same protection from defamation suits as journalists. That protection requires the plaintiffs to prove in court that the blogger used actual malice when posting the statements online. That phrase "actual malice" is defined in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan as knowingly or recklessly making false statements. In other words, the plaintiff has to prove that what the defendant said was untrue and knew it to be untrue when it was said. Further, the court held that Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., also applies to bloggers. That case gives private individuals a right to sue for defamation, but they may only obtain actual damages, not punitive damages. The Ninth Circuit found that Padrick, who was the subject of the one remaining statement made by Cox, was a private individual because the statements were made about his role as a bankruptcy trustee appointed by a court. Therefore, he was unable to receive punitive damages. Articles: DWT, "Blurred Lines: 9th Circuit Applies Same First Amendment Protections to Bloggers as Traditional Media," January 24, 2014 Verdict, "The Ninth Circuit Holds—Correctly—That a Blogger Has the Same Defamation Protection as a Journalist," February 3, 2014 Reporters Committee, "Ninth Circuit: Bloggers, public have same defamation protections as 'institutional press' on matters of public concern," January 17, 2014

• City and officer liable for tasing man (2013)

Click for summary→

Don Blondin heard a commotion outside his home and went to investigate. He found his neighbor, Jack, on the ground being shot with a taser by police officers. The officers were attempting to stop Jack from taking his own life, but Blondin did not know this. He asked the officers what they were doing and, in return, was told to back up. One officer, Sergeant Jeff Shelton, pointed his taser at Blondin and again told him to back up. Witnesses said Blondin appeared to be frozen in fear. When he did not move, Shelton warned Blondin he would be tased; before he finished the statement, however, Shelton fired the gun. Blondin was hit with the dart and incapacitated. Shelton warned Blondin’s wife, who had said nothing, that she was next. Blondin was then arrested and charged with obstructing a police officer. That case was dropped by the district attorney. The Blondins sued the city of Snohomish and Shelton individually for unlawful arrest, the use of excessive force and a common law doctrine called outrage, wherein a spouse can recover damages for seeing her husband in extreme pain at the hands of someone else. The defendants were granted summary judgment by federal district court Judge Robert Lasnik, including granting Shelton qualified immunity. Judge Lasnik’s ruling was appealed by the Blondins. A Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Jacqueline Nguyen and James Selna (sitting by designation), found that there was no evidence Blondin was resisting the officers or attempting to stop their actions; he was inquiring what they were doing to his neighbor. As a result, the city and Shelton were liable for Blondin's having been tased. Judge Nguyen dissented from the majority opinion, written by Judge Hawkins. Judge Nguyen felt that Blondin was interjecting himself into a police matter, and the officers were reacting to several issues at one time. She wrote that the majority did not consider the gravity of the situation at the time Blondin was tased and, as a result, discounts Shelton’s use of reasonable judgment in a situation with exigent circumstances. Articles: Slate.com, "Tase Thy Neighbor? Will a single dissenting opinion end Judge Jacqueline Nguyen’s Supreme Court aspirations?" September 18, 2013 Courthouse News, "No Immunity After Curiosity Tased the Cat," September 6, 2013

• Proposition 8 appeal (2011)      Judge(s):Michael D. Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and Randy Smith (Perry v. Brown, Appeal No. 11-16577)	Click for summary→
See also: California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008) On December 8, 2011, the court heard arguments regarding Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. On February 7, 2012, a three-judge appellate panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Perry v. Brown, which upheld the rulings by District Court Judges Vaughn Walker and James Ware and overturned California's Proposition 8, which had blocked same sex marriage in the state. The panel, consisting of Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and Randy Smith, stated that “Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California." The court ruled that the same-sex marriage ban violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The ruling stated: “ Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted... Under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status... ” In effect, the court concluded that, because domestic partnerships had already established equal rights for same-sex couples, the measure only served to deny these relationships the designation of "marriage." This, according to the court, was not a legitimate purpose for treating these couples differently under the law. The panel rendered split in its decision with Judge Randy Smith concurring in part and dissenting in part. The panel upheld both the decisions of Chief Judge Ware, as well as Senior Judge Walker, whose original decision had been challenged on the grounds that Walker had an undisclosed long-term relationship with another man at the time of the case. For expansive coverage of the ballot measure and ensuing legal controversy, please see: California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008). In a separate ruling, the same panel refused to release the videos from the original trial. The panel held that Walker “promised the litigants that the conditions under which the recording was maintained would not change — that there was no possibility that the recording would be broadcast to the public in the future.” Because of this, the judges determined that, "The integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge’s word."

• Medicinal marijuana in the U.S. (2005)      Judge(s):Harry Pregerson, Arlen Beam, Richard A. Paez (Angel McClary Raich, et al., v. John Ashcroft, et al., cv-02-4872-MJJ)	Click for summary→
In Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2003), rev'd sub nom. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), a cancer patient sued the federal government, seeking to prevent it from seizing her supply of medical marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The United States argued that it had the right to enforce its drug laws against Raich notwithstanding the California statute. Raich argued that since the marijuana was grown within California, had never left the state's borders and was not part of any economic transaction, Congress had no constitutional authority to regulate her cultivation and use of marijuana. In holding for Raich, the Ninth Circuit adhered to two landmark Supreme Court cases, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), which had substantially restricted Congress' authority to regulate “noneconomic” activity under the guise of the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed with this analysis, adhering instead to a 1942 case, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), in which the Court held that cultivation of wheat for personal consumption could be subject to a federal production quota even though the crop never entered the stream of commerce.

• Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools (2002)      Judge(s):Alfred Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt, Ferdinand Fernandez (Michael A. Newdow v. U.S. Congress, et al., cv-00-00495-MLS/PAN)	Click for summary→
In the 2002 case of Newdow v. U.S. Congress, the court declared that a public school district's practice of leading students in recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion and an unlawful interference with Newdow's right to educate his daughter in accordance with his own religious beliefs. The court held that the violations of the Establishment Clause and other constitutional rights they found were based on the pledge's inclusion of the words "under God". The case was brought by Michael Newdow, an atheist who felt that the daily recitation of the pledge in his daughter's school violated her First Amendment right to be free from government establishment of religion. In a 2-1 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel held for Newdow, stating that “[t]he text of the official pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God.” The majority opinion was written by Alfred Goodwin, who was appointed to the court by Richard M. Nixon, a Republican. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision. However, the majority opinion did not reach the substantive issue of whether the pledge violated the Establishment Clause, instead holding that Newdow, who did not have primary custody of his daughter (the child's mother, whom Newdow never married, had custody), did not have standing to litigate the claim in federal court. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas disagreed with the majority's opinion of Newdow's standing, but concurred in the judgment, making this a unanimous decision reversing the Ninth Circuit. Thomas wrote that the Ninth Circuit's opinion was “a persuasive reading of (Supreme Court) precedent,” but then attacked the precedent, particularly Lee v. Weisman. Rehnquist and O'Connor disagreed with the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the precedent.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court

This section focuses on cases the U.S. Supreme Court heard that originated in this court. To suggest cases we should cover here, email us.

2024-2025 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

The following case was scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2024-2025 term.

2024-2025 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 9th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency	TBD	TBD	TBD
Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank	Per curiam	dismissed as improvidently granted	N/A
NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB	TBD	TBD	TBD
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (Consolidated with Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.)	TBD	TBD	TBD
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp.	TBD	TBD	TBD

2023-2024 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

The following cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2023-2024 term.

2023-2024 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 9th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	N/A
Moore v. United States	Brett Kavanaugh	affirmed	7-2
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre	Neil Gorsuch	affirmed	9-0
Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski	Ketanji Brown Jackson	affirmed	9-0
Diaz v. United States	Clarence Thomas	affirmed	6-3
Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe	Chief Justice John Roberts	affirmed	5-4
Thornell v. Jones	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	6-3
Department of State v. Muñoz	Amy Coney Barrett	reversed and remanded	6-3
Moyle v. United States	Per curiam	Dismissed as improvidently granted	TBD
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson	Neil Gorsuch	reversed and remanded	6-3
Smith v. Spizzirri	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed and remanded	9-0

2022-2023 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

The following cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2022-2023 term.

2022-2023 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 9th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission	Elena Kagan	reversed and remanded	9-0
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	9-0
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross	Neil Gorsuch	affirmed	5-4
Bartenwerfer v. Buckley	Amy Coney Barrett	affirmed	9-0
Wilkins v. United States	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed and remanded	6-3
Gonzalez v. Google LLC	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	N/A
In re Grand Jury	N/A	dismissed	N/A
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh	Clarence Thomas	reversed	9-0
Arizona v. Navajo Nation (Consolidated with Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation)	Brett Kavanaugh	reversed	5-4
Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC	Elena Kagan	vacated and remanded	9-0
United States v. Hansen	Amy Coney Barrett	reversed and remanded	7-2
Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski	Brett Kavanaugh	reversed and remanded	5-4
Slack Technologies v. Pirani	Neil Gorsuch	vacated and remanded	9-0
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin (Consolidated with CMB Monaco v. Smagin)	Sonia Sotomayor	affirmed and remanded	6-3

2021-2022 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2021-2022 term.

2021-2022 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 9th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
United States v. Zubaydah	Stephen Breyer	reversed and remanded	7-2
Shinn v. Ramirez	Clarence Thomas	reversed	6-3
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP	Stephen Breyer	vacated and remanded	6-3
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	9-0
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation	Elena Kagan	reversed and remanded	5-4
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe	N/A	Case dismissed	N/A
Garland v. Gonzalez	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	6-3
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation	Elena Kagan	vacated and remanded	9-0
Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California	Per curiam	dismissed	N/A
Egbert v. Boule	Clarence Thomas	reversed	6-3
United States v. Washington	Stephen Breyer	reversed and remanded	9-0
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District	Neil Gorsuch	reversed	6-3
Vega v. Tekoh	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	6-3

2020-2021 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

The following cases were scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2020-2021 term.

2020-2021 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 9th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Shinn v. Kayer (Decided without argument)	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	6-3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club	Amy Coney Barrett	reversed and remanded	7-2
Nestlé USA v. Doe I (Consolidated with Cargill v. Doe I)	Clarence Thomas	reversed and remanded	8-1
Facebook v. Duguid	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed and remanded	9-0
AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission	Stephen Breyer	reversed and remanded	9-0
Tandon v. Newsom (Decided without argument)	Per curiam	Application for injunctive relief granted	5-4
Garland v. Dai (Consolidated with Garland v. Alcaraz-Enriquez)	Neil Gorsuch	vacated and remanded	9-0
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (Consolidated with Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee)	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	6-3
Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab	N/A	N/A	N/A
Trump v. Sierra Club	N/A	N/A	N/A
United States v. Cooley	Stephen Breyer	vacated and remanded	9-0
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez	Brett Kavanaugh	reversed and remanded	5-4
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston (Consolidated with American Athletic Conference v. Alston)	Neil Gorsuch	affirmed	9-0
United States v. Palomar-Santiago	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed and remanded	9-0
Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta (Consolidated with Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta)	John Roberts	reversed and remanded	6-3
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid	John Roberts	reversed and remanded	6-3
Alaska v. Wright (Decided without argument)	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	9-0
Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, California (Decided without argument)	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	9-0

2019-2020 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2019-2020 term.

2019-2020 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 9th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma	Samuel Alito	affirmed	9-0
Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media	Neil Gorsuch	vacated and remanded	9-0
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund	Stephen Breyer	vacated and remanded	6-3
United States v. Sineneng-Smith	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	vacated and remanded	9-0
Thompson v. Hebdon	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	NA
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (Consolidated with Trump v. NAACP and Wolf v. Vidal)	John Roberts	vacated in part and reversed in part	5-4
Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission	Sonia Sotomayor	vacated and remanded	8-1
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	7-2
Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau	John Roberts	vacated and remanded	5-4
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (Consolidated with St. James School v. Biel)	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	7-2

Federal courthouse

The court's regular meeting places are located in: Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, California; and Pasadena, California. However, panels of the court occasionally travel to hear cases in other locations within its territorial jurisdiction. Although the judges travel around the circuit, the court arranges its hearings so that cases from the northern region of the circuit are heard in Seattle or Portland, cases from southern California are heard in Pasadena, and cases from northern California, Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii are heard in San Francisco.

The Ninth Circuit is located in the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The courthouse was built at the turn of the century and was originally home to the court and the post office. Completed in 1905, the building was designed by the Supervising Architect of the Treasury, James Knox Taylor. The building was damaged in the earthquake of 1906, but was one of only two buildings left standing in that neighborhood of San Francisco and became a symbol of the rebuilding and restoration effort. Repairs were completed in 1910, and the building reopened. It was again damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. This earthquake gave birth to a rebuilding and restoration effort complete with seismic retrofitting and the addition of 45,000 square feet of space costing a total of $91,000,000. The building formally reopened on October 17, 1996. Prior to this, the building was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1971.

About United States Courts of Appeals

The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal courts. The court of appeals was originally created in 1891 and has grown to include thirteen courts.

A court of appeals decides appeals from any of the district courts that are in its federal judicial circuit. The appeals courts also can hear appeals from some administrative agencies. Decisions of the federal appeals courts can, in turn, be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

There are thirteen United States courts of appeals. In addition, there are other federal courts (such as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which hears appeals in court-martial cases) that have "Court of Appeals" in their titles.

The eleven "numbered" circuits and the D.C. Circuit are defined by geography. The thirteenth court of appeal is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court has nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of appeals based on what the underlying legal case is about.

All of the courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking. The largest share of this type of case is heard by the D.C. Circuit. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from specialized trial courts, primarily the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims, as well as appeals from the district courts in patent cases and certain other specialized matters.

Federal circuit court judges are appointed for life. They are paid approximately $179,500 annually. At the age of 65, a federal judge may choose to retire with his or her full salary. Judges may also choose to go on senior status at age 65, if they have served actively for 15 years.

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of appeals court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through November 1 of the fourth year of each president's term in office. At this point in the term, President Trump had the most appeals court appointments with 53.

Judges by circuit

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each circuit and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies on a circuit and how many pending nominations for that circuit are before the United States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line. It is updated every Monday.

See also

• Federal courts
• Federal judge
• United States Court of Appeals
• United States District Court for the District of Alaska
• United States District Court for the District of Arizona
• United States District Court for the Central District of California
• United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
• United States District Court for the Northern District of California
• United States District Court for the Southern District of California
• United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
• United States District Court for the District of Idaho
• United States District Court for the District of Montana
• United States District Court for the District of Nevada
• United States District Court for the District of Oregon
• United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
• United States District Court for the Western District of Washington

External links

• United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
• Opinions
• Federal Judicial Center, "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," August 9, 2019
• James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse
• Rulings of the 9th Circuit relevant to ballot initiatives
• Courthouse News Service, "Warrantless wiretap suit nixed by 9th Circuit," June 14, 2013
• The Wall Street Journal, “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: To Split Or Not To Split?” March 23, 2006