Latest news with #NinthCircuit
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Blow for Trump's ICE raids as court upholds ban on snatching people based on appearance or job
The Trump administration suffered another blow to its mass deportation agenda on Friday after an appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling that prevents Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from detaining a person based on their appearance, native language, or job. A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles said the plaintiffs, a cohort of five individuals and three immigration advocacy organizations, were likely to succeed on their claim that ICE agents violated the Fourth Amendment by relying on four factors to form reasonable suspicion to support detention stops. Those four factors include apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a particular location such as a laborer pick-up site, and the type of work a person does. Three plaintiffs who are day laborers said in their original lawsuit against Trump administration officials that they were waiting to be picked up to go to a construction site job when ICE agents swooped in and intimidated them. The plaintiffs said the immigration law enforcement officers never identified themselves, stated they had arrest warrants, nor informed the plaintiffs of the bases for the arrests. The Ninth Circuit panel upheld a previous temporary injunction set by District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong in June. In keeping with Trump's mass deportation agenda, immigration law enforcement officers were deployed throughout Southern California to begin conducting sweeping raids. Many of those raids, according to the lawsuit, were conducted at 'certain types of businesses' such as car washes, because immigration law enforcement officials determined those businesses were more likely to hire people without legal documentation. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit referred to those as 'roving patrols' and said they were being detained without reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizures. The raids, which led to protests in downtown Los Angeles back in May, have been challenged by multiple individuals and immigration advocacy groups. One plaintiff, Jason Brian Gavidia, said ICE agents stopped him in June after he stepped onto the sidewalk outside of a tow yard in Montebello, California. Gavidia, who is an American citizen, identifies as Latino and said ICE agents pushed him up against a chain-link fence and interrogated him. Even after Gavidia gave ICE agents his Real ID, they seemingly did not believe him. In her earlier ruling, Frimpong said Gavidia and other plaintiffs were likely to succeed 'in proving that the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers.' Frimpong ordered immigration law enforcement not to rely solely on the four factors 'except as permitted by law.' While the appeals court panel upheld much of Frimpong's ruling, they did strike the 'except as permitted by law,' saying that language was too vague. Solve the daily Crossword
Fox News
a day ago
- Politics
- Fox News
MIKE DAVIS: Eric Tung is Trump's pick to bring sanity to the Ninth Circuit
On July 15, President Trump nominated my friend and former Gorsuch clerk colleague Eric Tung to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. If confirmed, Tung will succeed Judge Sandra Ikuta, who recently assumed senior status after a distinguished tenure. Judge Ikuta leaves behind a strong legacy, one Tung is more than equipped to uphold and extend. Tung's credentials are exceptional. He earned a philosophy degree from Yale in 2006 and graduated with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School in 2010. While there, he served as managing editor of the University of Chicago Law Review, one of the most rigorous legal journals in the country. Following law school, Tung clerked for two of the most respected jurists in America: then-Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. These clerkships are offered only to the legal elite. Even among that group, Tung stood out. Although President Trump made inroads during his first term in balancing out the nation's most liberal federal appeals court outside of Washington, D.C., of the 29 active judges, 16 were Democratic nominees. Tung replacing Ikuta won't change that balance, but it will ensure the vacated seat remains in the hands of a strong constitutionalist. Tung's brilliance, ethics, and temperament have earned him bipartisan respect. A letter supporting his nomination was signed by fellow Supreme Court clerks from across the ideological spectrum, from Justice Ginsburg's to Justice Thomas'. That level of cross-aisle support is rare and speaks volumes. One signer, Danielle Sassoon, a former federal prosecutor who has publicly disagreed with the Trump administration, went out of her way to endorse Tung. Her support underscores how widely admired he is for his intellect and integrity, regardless of politics. Ultimately, what really matters is Tung's record, and it's unimpeachable. He is a brilliant legal mind, a fair-minded jurist, and a committed constitutionalist. Tung's experience goes far beyond the top of the legal profession. He served in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy, where he helped vet judicial nominees, giving him a firsthand look at what makes a good judge. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, he prosecuted serious criminal cases, gaining invaluable courtroom experience. Now a partner at Jones Day, Tung handles complex appellate and trial work at a national level. Although President Trump made inroads during his first term in balancing out the nation's most liberal federal appeals court outside of Washington, D.C., of the 29 active judges, 16 were Democratic nominees. Tung replacing Ikuta won't change that balance, but it will ensure the vacated seat remains in the hands of a strong constitutionalist. Despite this impeccable record, Tung's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was marred by partisan theatrics. Several Democrat senators ignored his qualifications and fixated instead on social media posts I had written. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., quoted part of an old post of mine and demanded Tung "condemn" it. Tung, noting the canons of judicial ethics, rightly declined to weigh in, clarifying that my opinions are not necessarily his. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., followed suit, hitting Tung over a post where I had labeled certain Democrats "evil Marxists." Booker then attempted to cast himself as a model of bipartisan civility, citing his friendship with Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., conveniently omitting that he once claimed supporters of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court were "complicit in evil." Again, Tung refused to be drawn into political grandstanding, displaying the restraint and poise we should expect from a federal judge. This guilt-by-association line of attack is dishonest and irrelevant. Tung's record speaks for itself. Rather than engage with his legal merits, some senators tried to hijack yet another Judiciary Committee hearing to score cheap political points. Tung never took the bait. His nomination also highlights the double standard in how judicial diversity is treated. As the son of Chinese immigrants and a fluent Mandarin speaker, one would think Democrats would celebrate Tung at least for their sacred metrics of representation and diversity on the federal bench. But because he's a conservative, his background is downplayed, or even used against him. The selective celebration of diversity and identity politics in judicial nominations is glaring. Ultimately, what really matters is Tung's record, and it's unimpeachable. He is a brilliant legal mind, a fair-minded jurist, and a committed constitutionalist. His combination of courtroom experience, academic rigor, and ethical clarity makes him an ideal appellate judge. The Senate should rise above political posturing and confirm Eric Tung without delay. His confirmation will not only fortify the Ninth Circuit, but strengthen the rule of law nationwide. President Trump's reshaping of the federal judiciary with principled, constitutionalist judges will take a significant step forward with Tung's appointment. Eric Tung is exactly the kind of judge Americans want: sharp, steady, and scrupulously fair. The Senate must act upon its return and confirm him in September. Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Ammunition Depot Issues Update on California Ammunition Sales - Ninth Circuit Victory on Hold as State Seeks En Banc Review
Ninth Circuit Victory on Hold as California Seeks En Banc Rehearing BOCA RATON, Fla., Aug. 8, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- In a major Second Amendment ruling, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California's 2016 law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases and prohibiting direct mail-order sales, declaring those laws unconstitutional. . The decision, issued in Rhode v. Bonta, marks a significant victory for Ammunition Depot, the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and fellow plaintiffs challenging those laws. However, California officials have now moved to challenge that ruling by seeking a rehearing en banc (full court review) at the Ninth Circuit, which means the panel's decision will not take effect immediately. As a result, California's current ammunition regulations, including in-store background checks and restrictions on direct shipments of ammo, remain in force pending further court proceedings. Under the still-operative law (Proposition 63, passed in 2016), California residents must buy ammunition through in-state licensed dealers and undergo a background check for each purchase, which effectively bans direct online ammo sales to homes. Ammunition Depot is urging its California customers to remain patient and continue following all current state laws regarding ammunition transactions while the legal process unfolds. Under the California DOJ's interpretation, the state's ammunition restrictions remain in effect while the case proceeds. The company will immediately begin direct shipments to California customers if and when the court's mandate is allowed to take effect, but that cannot happen unless Ammunition Depot prevails in the next phase of the case. "We know this is frustrating for California gun owners who were hopeful the recent court decision would restore their ammo buying freedom right away," said Seth Weinstein, Founder & Managing Partner of Ammunition Depot. "Unfortunately, the victory is on hold because the State of California is fighting tooth and nail to keep these restrictions in place. We respect the legal process, but believe Californians' rights should not be delayed any longer. Our customers in California have waited years for relief, and we're not about to give up now, we'll continue this fight to its finish." The California Attorney General has formally requested that a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges reexamine the case. This next phase of the case could take several months, depending on whether en banc review is granted and how quickly the court acts. First, the active judges of the Ninth Circuit will decide whether to grant en banc review. If granted, an 11-judge panel will be convened to rehear the case, likely later this year or in early 2026. Because California has now filed for en banc review, the panel's ruling will not take effect unless that petition is denied or resolved. The mandate remains pending, and the 2016 California ammunition laws continue to be enforced during this stage of the appeal. "We anticipated that California would not back down easily, and we are fully prepared to see this through," Weinstein continued. "The Ninth Circuit's decision was a huge win for the Constitution and millions of law-abiding Californians, and we remain confident that win will ultimately prevail, whether at an en banc hearing or at the Supreme Court. California's leaders have made it clear they won't back down, and neither will we. We owe it to our customers and all Californians to keep fighting until their rights are restored." In the meantime, Ammunition Depot will continue to keep California customers informed. The company previously celebrated the Ninth Circuit panel's ruling as a historic affirmation of Second Amendment rights, and it remains a lead plaintiff in defending that ruling through the next stages of Weinstein emphasized that California customers must still abide by current law until the case is fully resolved. "California law remains unchanged for now," said Weinstein. "We urge all California customers to continue purchasing ammunition through licensed in-state channels. We know it's frustrating, but we don't want anyone caught in a legal gray area. If you attempt to order from us today, we regret that we are still unable to ship to you under the current law. But hang tight; we are hopeful that day is coming. We have fought for years to make online ammo sales to California legal again, and we are not stopping now." Ammunition Depot will provide additional updates as soon as the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court provides clarity on the next steps. The company remains optimistic that the result will be a permanent victory for California gun owners. "We've come this far, and the momentum is on our side," Weinstein said. "It may take a bit more time, but we believe freedom will win out. We want to thank all our customers for their support and patience. We promise to notify everyone as soon as we are legally able to resume shipments to California. That day will be cause for celebration, not just for our company, but for everyone who values the Second Amendment." About Ammunition Depot: Founded in 2011, Ammunition Depot is one of the largest online retailers and suppliers of ammunition, firearms, and tactical gear in the United States. The company is dedicated to offering the best products at competitive prices while promoting and protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. For more information, please visit PR Contact:Ammunition DepotJeff WisotPhone: (561) 381-9526Email: Or Murray Road AgencyJonathan HarlingEmail: View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Ammunition Depot 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Epoch Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Epoch Times
I Was Barred From Adopting for Opposing Gender Transitioning—Until a Court Overturned the Decision
Commentary Every year in Oregon, thousands of children touch the state's foster care system. In fiscal 2023, children who eventually leave the system spent a median time of 23.4 months in the state's custody. For those eventually adopted, the latest available data show that the median time was even longer— 34.6 months. And every month, the state houses some children in 'temporary lodgings'—an overnight stay in a hotel or a night on the floor of a social worker's office, for example. I want to help these children. I want to open my home to adopt a sibling pair under 10, loving and caring for them as best I can. But Oregon wouldn't let me because of my faith—that is, until July 24, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked the state's actions against me, determining that 'Oregon's policy violates the First Amendment.'
New York Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Lift Restrictions on L.A. Immigration Stops
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to pause a federal judge's order prohibiting federal agents from making indiscriminate immigration-related stops in the Los Angeles area. Judge Maame E. Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., ordered agents not to rely on several factors, alone or in combination, in deciding whom to stop and question in her judicial district. The factors were race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or accented English; presence at a particular location, such as a day-laborer or agricultural site; or performing a particular type of work. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to pause Judge Frimpong's order. The order has placed significant restrictions on what had become the center of President Trump's efforts to ramp up immigrant arrests to achieve his pledge of mass deportations. Aggressive enforcement operations in Los Angeles — including encounters captured on video that appeared to be roundups of random Hispanic people by armed agents — set off days of protests and clashes in the area. In the administration's emergency application to the Supreme Court, D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, wrote that Judge Frimpong's order had unlawfully hamstrung immigration enforcement in the nation's most populous judicial district, one he said 'harbors some two million illegal aliens out of its total population of nearly 20 million people, making it by far the largest destination for illegal aliens.' Mr. Sauer added that federal agents used judgment and discretion. 'Needless to say,' Mr. Sauer wrote, 'no one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion. Nor does anyone suggest those are the only factors federal agents ever consider. But in many situations, such factors — alone or in combination — can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States, above and beyond the 1-in-10 baseline odds in the district.' Civil rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Public Counsel filed suit on July 2 accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps since early June in which thousands of people have been arrested. The lawsuit accused the administration of unleashing 'indiscriminate immigration operations' that have swept up thousands of day laborers, carwash workers, farmworkers, caregivers and others. 'Individuals with brown skin are approached or pulled aside by unidentified federal agents, suddenly and with a show of force,' the complaint said, 'and made to answer questions about who they are and where they are from,' violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.
