(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel held that the district court correctly instructed the jury to apply a “but for” causation standard, rather than a motivating factor standard; an ADA discrimination plaintiff must show the adverse employment action would not have occurred but for the disability.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel held that even if Plaintiff’s obesity were an impairment under the ADA, or he suffered from a disabling knee condition, he could not show a causal relationship between these impairments and his termination. Summary judgement in favor of the defendant affirmed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. A state prisoner’s in forma pauperis status was revoked because he had three prior strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The panel reversed, holding that because the prior cases were not dismissed on grounds enumerated in Section 1915(g), they did not qualify as strikes.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Even assuming there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny the claim as to the first two requirements under Napue v. Illinois, the panel could not say that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the testimony did not satisfy the materiality requirement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The panel affirmed that continued detention for five hours after the shooting violated plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. However, because no analogous case existed at the time of the shooting, the district court erred by denying Gutierrez qualified immunity for this claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The panel held that the district court erred by concluding it could not listen to the defendant’s allocution before determining whether a reduction of acceptance of responsibility was warranted under the Sentencing Guidelines, affecting the defendant’s substantial rights and fairness of the proceedings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The panel affirmed Los Angeles County was not entitled to 11th Amendment immunity because the County was not an arm of the state when it administered the In-Home Supportive Services program. The court reversed on the collective period’s effective date.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court’s order vacating a registered judgement is reversed, holding that a court need not have personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor in order to “merely register” a previously obtained judgment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Remanded. The panel held that petitioner’s reliance on his lawyer’s erroneous advice that he was not required to update his fingerprints was reasonable and constituted “good cause” to grant a continuance, and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff had knowledge of the injury by May 2013, and in applying Hawaii’s two-year statute of limitations the panel found her complaint is not subject to any exception from the normal discovery rule of accrual. Accordingly, her complaint filed in 2015 is time-barred.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel credited the district court’s factual findings as logical and well-supported and held that the responsible prison authorities were deliberately indifferent to Edmo’s gender dysphoria, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel agreed with the district court that the EB-5 investments in this case constituted “securities” in the form of investment contracts, affirming the district court’s conclusion that Feng was acting as a broker and violated the registration requirement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The defendant’s prior Nevada conviction for attempted battery with substantial bodily harm in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 200.481(2)(b) and 193.330 qualifies as a felony conviction for a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel held that the district court correctly interpreted the statute to allow for respondeat superior liability, and further held that the district court did not err in admitting the statements of Church leaders under the co-conspirator exception to the rule against hearsay.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Finding the record did not compel the conclusion that police officers did not persecute Singh on account of his imputed political opinions, the panel concluded his asylum claim fails.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, remanded for resentencing. The district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause when it sentenced the defendant to five years’ imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) (2006) upon revoking his supervised release rather than sentencing him under the statutes as they existed in 2005.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. The panel held that, in the context of the restitution statute, “period of incarceration” does not include pretrial detention. The district court’s order to seize funds in the defendant’s inmate trust account is reversed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. Because none of the defendant’s prior convictions had standard sentencing ranges exceeding one year, and none was accompanied by written findings of any of the statutory factors that would justify an upward departure, the defendant had no predicate offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court denied Plaintiff’s national-interest waiver petition for lack of jurisdiction. Affirming, the panel held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to review the denial of a national-interest waiver.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. The panel held that the FDIC’s appeal was timely filed within 60 days of entry of the district court’s judgment because, even though acting solely as a receiver, the FDIC was a United States agency under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B)(ii).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed & remanded. The panel held that a party need not satisfy the good cause or extraordinary circumstances standard provided in 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c)(4) in order to withdraw magistrate judge consent before all parties have consented.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In a claim of negligence for secondary exposure to asbestos, the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient cause. The panel held that in the context of asbestos claims, the substantial-factor test requires “demonstrating that the injured person had substantial exposure to the relevant asbestos for a substantial period of time.”

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed in part, affirmed in part. Plaintiffs have standing for a Freedom of Information Act claim because the removal of compliance and enforcement records from the USDA website harmed them in real-world ways, differently from the injuries sustained by other Americans.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The complaint did not plausibly allege Plaintiff was placed on the Child Abuse Central Index as retaliation. However, it did plausibly allege that Plaintiff engaged in protected activity and that retaliation was the but-for motive for the social worker’s actions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Finding the crime described in Article 129 of South Korea’s Criminal Code fits squarely within the definition of “bribing a public official” from 18 U.S.C. Section 1956, the indictment was sufficient and there was no instructional error.

Coloradans favor Democratic U.S. Senate candidate John Hickenlooper over Republican incumbent Sen. Cory Gardner by 18 points, results from a poll released Wednesday showed.

Colorado Republican Party Chair Ken Buck, a U.S. representative from Windsor, pressured a local party official to submit incorrect election results to set the primary ballot for a state Senate seat, according to an audio recording of a conference call obtained by The Denver Post.

A document created by the nation's top disease investigators with step-by-step advice to local authorities on how and when to reopen restaurants and other public places during the still-raging outbreak has been shelved by the Trump administration.

The decision to wear a mask in public is becoming a political statement — a moment to pick sides in a brewing culture war over containing the coronavirus.

A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the convictions of two political insiders involved in the “Bridgegate” scandal that ultimately derailed the 2016 presidential bid of then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The justices found evidence of deception, corruption and abuse of power in the scheme, but said “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime.”

The Justice Department on Thursday said it is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, abandoning a prosecution that became a rallying cry for the president and his supporters in attacking the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation.

Colorado Republican Chairman Ken Buck is facing criticism from within his own party after revelations that he pressured another party official to submit incorrect election results — and then spent party money to defend the move. At least two party executives say they were surprised to learn Buck — who’s also a U.S. representative — […]

Local government orders mandating residents wear masks have become a political flash point in Colorado’s ongoing coronavirus pandemic response.

The Weld County GOP chairman has filed a complaint with the local district attorney and the Secretary of State’s Office accusing an aide to Republican U.S. Rep. Ken Buck and three others of election fraud and corruption.

Immigrant advocates are working with Colorado lawmakers to provide relief to vulnerable families during the coronavirus crisis.

(United States Third Circuit) - Vacated an administrative decision ordering a lawful permanent resident removed from the United States for having committed an aggravated felony. The man, a trader at a financial services firm who pleaded guilty to a securities law violation, argued that his crime was not truly an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act and therefore he should not be removed. Finding merit in his argument, the Third Circuit granted his petition for review and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed a conviction and sentence for possession of heroin with intent to distribute. The defendant argued that the trial court should have suppressed evidence obtained during a traffic stop because he had revoked his consent to the search. He also argued that he should not have been deemed a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The Third Circuit rejected his contentions, in a decision in which each judge filed a concurring opinion, including the author of the majority opinion.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief in a case where the defendant was challenging his sentence by arguing that the residual clause in the career offender Sentencing Guideline is unconstitutionally vague. The defendant argued that his habeas petition raising this constitutional issue was timely manner because the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. US, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), gave rise to a newly recognized right, thus providing him a year from when Johnson was decided to file his habeas petition. On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed with the government that his petition was untimely.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed that a broker-dealer was required to arbitrate a customer's claim. The broker-dealer had placed a contractual clause in its agreement with an institutional customer stating that the customer must bring any claims arising out of their agreement in a particular federal court. Splitting from several other circuits on the enforceability of such forum-selection clauses, the Third Circuit held that the clause was unenforceable because it would circumvent Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 12200. The panel therefore affirmed an order compelling the broker-dealer to submit to FINRA arbitration.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that unpaid highway tolls are not the type of debt that can support a claim under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). A driver who failed to pay tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike because his electronic payment account was in arrears filed a class-action complaint alleging that a debt collection agency used impermissible means to collect the debt. Affirming dismissal of his complaint, the Third Circuit held that highway tolls are a legal obligation in the nature of a tax that falls outside the scope of the FDCPA.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed that a company whose sole business activity was purchasing and then attempting to collect debts was subject to the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). When homeowners brought suit against the assignee of their home equity loan alleging unlawful debt-collection attempts, the assignee argued that it was not covered by the FDCPA because it was a creditor, not a debt collector. Disagreeing with this characterization, the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the homeowners.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed a conviction and sentence related to the defendant's participation in a string of bank robberies. The case was on remand from the Supreme Court, which had granted the defendant's petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the Third Circuit's 2013 judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Alleyne v. US, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). After reviewing the defendant's arguments under Alleyne as well as other arguments he raised, the Third Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the convictions of a former Congressman and three of his associates for campaign finance-related offenses arising from his unsuccessful 2006 run for mayor of Philadelphia. Each of the defendants was convicted on multiple counts, and then appealed on numerous grounds. The Third Circuit vacated convictions on some of the counts but reinstated others and in other respects affirmed the trial court's judgment.

(United States Third Circuit) - Vacated a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the defendant challenged his 15-year sentence, arguing that he was sentenced under a portion of the ACCA later held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Finding merit in his contentions, the Third Circuit remanded for an analysis of whether the error of treating his Pennsylvania robbery convictions as predicate offenses under the ACCA was harmless in light of his other prior convictions.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that the federal Rehabilitation Act generally requires that individuals with disabilities be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals. The plaintiffs in this case were the parents of an elementary school student with epilepsy who wanted to be accompanied at school by her service dog. On a question of first impression in the federal courts of appeals, the Third Circuit concluded that such requests for reasonable accommodation are per se reasonable in the ordinary course. The panel held that the district court's contrary jury instructions constituted reversible error.

(United States Third Circuit) - Remanded for reconsideration of whether former employees of an asbestos mining and processing operation in Montana could bring a negligence suit against the now-bankrupt company's insurers. The insurers sought a declaratory judgment that the former employees, who now suffer from asbestos disease, were barred from proceeding with their lawsuit because the bankruptcy court had already created a trust to compensate persons injured by the company's asbestos. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that police officers were entitled to qualified immunity from claims arising out of a wild high-speed chase that ended with the motorist being shot between 16 and 18 times. The apparently unarmed motorist and his wife filed this suit alleging that the officers violated the motorist's Fourth Amendment rights. On interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, the Third Circuit held that the officers' conduct was within the bounds of the Supreme Court's relevant decisions regarding the use of lethal force, and the officers were entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by investors of a bankrupt company who claimed they were entitled to dividend payments. The investors, who purchased their shares with notice of the bankruptcy, claimed that the company and several of its officers were liable for failing to pay them a dividend they were owed. Rejecting their arguments, the Third Circuit held that the investors were bound by the reorganization plan, including its releases of liability.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of taxi operators' constitutional challenge to an agreement that the City of Newark entered into with the ride-sharing service Uber. The taxi operators claimed that the City had violated their constitutional and state law rights by subjecting Uber and similar ride-sharing services to less onerous regulations than those imposed on taxi and limousine operators. Unpersuaded by these arguments, the Third Circuit held that the potentially unfair situation created by the City's decision could not be remedied through the plaintiffs' constitutional and state law claims.

(United States Third Circuit) - Dismissed a petition for certiorari review of a decision of the Virgin Islands Supreme Court due to lack of appellate jurisdiction. The defendant asked the Third Circuit to exercise its authority to review the Virgin Islands high court's decision in a breach-of-contract case. In an en banc ruling, the Third Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Congress has terminated its jurisdiction over certiorari petitions filed after December 28, 2012, regardless of when the case was originally filed.