#CA9
LightNews LightNews
grandstandfan.bsky.social
I'm guessing this is about the CA9 en banc bullshit, insane.
November 3, 2026 at 7:59 PM
joshgerstein.bsky.social
CA9 has never granted full-court review since the limited en banc court was authorized in 1978. DOJ has until 8PM PT/5PM PT to respond
November 3, 2026 at 10:55 PM
courtneymilan.com
There is nothing quite like CA9: a circuit so huge that their en banc process is a panel, and the requests for rehearing en band involve a flurry of memos exchanged back and forth.
November 3, 2026 at 4:43 AM
jinxed-designs.bsky.social
#goretober prompt 26 - sacrifice
Featuring my fren @r3d-ca9.bsky.social

#furry #furryart #furryartist #art #digitalart #anthro #gore #bskyart #bskyartist #illustration
October 31, 2026 at 10:36 PM
mikesacks.bsky.social
Late last night a couple of GWB judges on CA9 tried to let Trump mess with our elections:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Later last night, the full CA9 smacked them down:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
November 3, 2026 at 2:23 PM
m4dg0at.bsky.social
Not the “full” CA9, they do “en banc” panels of 11 judges from the 29 active judges. This panel was a horrible draw: 5 Trump appointees and a GWB judge who was in the majority on the 3-judge panel.
November 3, 2026 at 8:30 PM
djsziff.bsky.social
Since we use (en banc) for the CA9 limited en banc, what would we use for a full en banc?

(en banc grande)?

(en banquette)?

(en tabouret)?
November 4, 2026 at 12:34 AM
mford.bsky.social
The NJ case got there first for cert filing but there’s others in the pipeline, including the CA9 one: www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docke...
October 31, 2026 at 3:59 PM
zahrsaid.bsky.social
Clerks are really earning the prestige/experience associated with those CA9 clerkships! Thanks for the overtime, clerks, judges & Chris! Fingers crossed TRO is reinstated (or stay is dismissed? Unsure of procedure but cheering on the Ninth Circuit!)
November 3, 2026 at 5:32 AM
andyhre.bsky.social
Sunday Ticket case is back, folks. New trial on damages.

I need to digest but here is it drive.google.com/file/d/1D1VO...
ca9-2024-05493-00219.pdf
drive.google.com
October 30, 2026 at 4:31 PM
s.ai
here's random legal thing I did recently. ECF 58.1: drive.google.com/drive/folder...
docket is www.courtlistener.com/docket/71703... but note that this filing is not publicly available as it's a restricted docket

context:
1/6
CA9 24-4790 Malkeet v AG filings - Google Drive
drive.google.com
November 2, 2026 at 8:59 AM
pdgpa.bsky.social
An appeal does not bode well for them, true; but the main reason for that is not that CA9 is inherently an unfriendly forum. The main reason is that the DoJ case is absurdly weak, to the point that if it were not the US Govt, the party bringing the suit could be facing penalties and/or sanctions.
November 1, 2026 at 9:05 PM
mikesacks.bsky.social
Anyway CA9 smacked down Trump's suit by a 2-1 vote in which the hack dissenter performed yet another trollmaxxing audition for Thomas's seat
mikesacks.bsky.social Mike Sacks @mikesacks.bsky.social · 9d
Trump depends on the fake credulity of disgraceful hacks like Bumatay who will characterize Trump’s systematic assaults on democracy as attempts to protect it.

And Bumatay complies again and again

He knows exactly what he’s doing.

Shame.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Case: 26-7070, 10/26/2026, DktEntry: 63.1, (57 of 91) FILED United States v. California et al., No. 26-7070 BUMATAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting: OCT 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS "Preserving the integrity of the electoral process" is an "interest[] of the highest importance." First Nat'l Bank of Bos. v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 788-89 (1978). According to the federal government, thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote in California. And those noncitizens received mail ballots to vote in this November's election. Those questionable ballots are now rolling in. Once those ballots are processed, it would be impossible to identify them, and they must be counted in the election. The federal government raised its concerns to California and asked the State to set aside those ballots. California's chief election official, its Secretary of State, told the federal government that California could not do so because of her reading of state and federal law. The question-does the federal government have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections? Under both federal law and the Constitution, the answer must be "yes." Simply, the federal government has a sovereign interest in safeguarding federal elections and ensuring that the votes of noncitizens do not undermine our electoral results. Start with the Supremacy Clause. At all times, the Constitution and federal law trump state actions that contradict them. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Next, the Elections Clause grants States the authority to set the rules for the "Times, Places and Manner" of elections. Id. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. But the Elections Clause also lets Congress make or alter those rules. It did so with 18 U.S.C. § 611(a). Congress made it a crime for an alien to vote in any election for federal office. Thus, California's actions frustrate the federal prohibition on noncitizens voting, and federal law preempts what California has done. We should've enjoined it from accepting and processing ballots likely cast by aliens until their citizenship could be verified. In this emergency posture, I only briefly highlight the reasons the federal government is entitled to relief. First, we have appellate jurisdiction over the matter. After the federal government filed its initial complaint and asked for injunctive relief, it learned that mail-in ballots are being received and counted at a massive scale. 331,000 mail-in ballots in Los Angeles County alone. That meant that a potentially large number of noncitizens' ballots would be commingled with legal voters-harming the integrity of the election. To the federal government, delay was no longer an option. On October 21, 2026, it told the district court that it needed a ruling by October 22. The district court did not act. With the election only 14 days away and with every passing day bringing the possibility of more illegal votes, the federal government appealed to us. Under Supreme Court precedent, this is enough to confer appellate jurisdiction. Second, the federal government may sue California. History and precedent support that it has both standing and an equitable cause of action to protect federal elections. Third, the federal government is likely to prevail on the merits. California officials' interpretation of state and federal law-that the State must continue to commingle likely illegal and legal ballots after learning that aliens are receiving mail-in ballots-unacceptably frustrates Congress's prohibition on aliens voting in federal elections. So California's actions must be preempted. Finally, none of California's counterarguments prevent the federal government from stepping in and seeking to stop California from burying its head in the sand while aliens may be voting in federal elections. We should've granted the federal government relief-federal law precludes California from commingling ballots likely cast by aliens with legitimate ballots, because it encourages and induces illegal voting. Stopping that practice for those identified as likely noncitizens is the bare minimum. I respectfully dissent.
October 27, 2026 at 6:20 PM
honeybeetail1bskys.bsky.social
HONEYBEETAIL本店
今週の割引品「ストーン付き桜チャーム立体花」
honeybeetail.cart.fc2.com/ca9/460/p-r-s/

11/7まで50％offになっています

#桜
November 1, 2026 at 9:13 AM
m4dg0at.bsky.social
It’s obv that DOJ wants to drive this to SCOTUS knowing that the DC and CA9 are both going to give them the legal version of “get fucked”.
October 27, 2026 at 8:18 PM
fitzador.bsky.social
"Super en banc" is really a thing in the 9th Circuit. In every other circuit, "en banc" means all the active judges in the circuit. But CA9 has so many judges, "en banc" means a selection of 11. "Super en banc" is the colloquial name for a full en banc rehearing by all 29 active judges.
joshgerstein.bsky.social Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein.bsky.social · 1d
BREAKING: After losing at 3-judge & 11-judge courts, SEIU requests "super en banc" rehearing on Trump admin appeal of judge's order barring threats to prosecute election officials for counting possibly illegal votes. Doc: www.documentcloud.org/documents/28... Earlier www.politico.com/storyline/li...
SEIUSuperEBPetn110326
www.documentcloud.org
November 3, 2026 at 10:58 PM
s.ai
lawyers on an immigration (convention against torture) case submitted AI hallucinations to the 9th circuit, got caught, denied it

got grilled by CA9 panel www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaKZ... . went very very badly.

got an order to show cause why they should not be sanctioned.
2/6
24-4790 Lnu, et al. v. Bondi
YouTube video by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
www.youtube.com
November 2, 2026 at 8:59 AM
lancetimaging.bsky.social
🎉Our October issue is now live

Radiotheranostics, cardiovascular imaging, patient safety and more...
Read it all here ➡️ www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...

As a gold open access journal, our content is free to read by everyone, always.

#OA
#MedSky #RadSky
Alt text: A molecular view of metastatic cancer: CA9-targeted PET/CT imaging visualises metastases from clear cell renal cell carcinoma to capture the complex biology of tumours and their microenvironment.
October 28, 2026 at 7:40 PM
themedici.bsky.social
Does the district court livestream like CA9? Not that I'll be available, 😩.
October 27, 2026 at 3:20 PM
mikesacks.bsky.social
Oh my god CA9 en banc drew a MAGA majority and reversed course again…are we now gonna get a Super En Banc to vacate this??? Or just too late in the day now?

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GOULD, BEA, OWENS, BENNETT, MILLER, LEE, VANDYKE, H.A. THOMAS, DESAI, and TUNG, Circuit Judges. A majority of the en banc court has voted to reinstate the three-judge panel's order filed on November 2, 2026. Pending further order of the court, the three-judge panel order filed on November 2, 2026, and previously vacated, is reinstated. A copy of the three-judge panel order, a concurrence by Judge Miller, and dissents by Chief Judge Murguia and Judge Desai, are attached. SEIU v. United States Dep't of Justice, No. 26-7303 MILLER, Circuit Judge, with whom BENNETT, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring: I fully agree with the decision in United States v. California,. NOV 3 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLE U.S. COURT OF APPEAL F.4th No. 26-7231, 2026 WL 3268272 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2026) (per curiam). Under that decision, many of the positions taken by the federal government in its recent communications to state election officials may have little merit. But a district court does not generally have the authority to enter an injunction prohibiting the Department of Justice from expressing its views about criminal statutes, even if the court determines that those views are incorrect. And I agree with the three-judge panel that section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b), does not provide such authority. As for Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam), reasonable minds can differ about precisely how that decision applies in the circumstances of this case. But a majority of the full court evidently determined that Purcell did not bar last night's order granting rehearing en banc and vacating the panel's stay. If that is true, then it is difficult to see how Purcell could bar this morning's order undoing that action. MURGUIA, Chief Judge, joined by GOULD, OWENS, H.A. THOMAS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges, dissenting: Last Friday, we held that the United States has no authority to compel state elections officials to disregard their own lawful election procedures. United States v. California, _ F.4th _, No. 26-7231, 2026 WL 3268272, at *4 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2026) (California). Today, by contrast, we hold, sitting en banc, that several federal agencies and officials ('Defendants") may compel state election officials to put aside state election procedures in favor of Defendants' preferred procedures by threatening prosecution of state and local election officials who fail to comply. These two decisions cannot be reconciled. The majority distinguishes California by characterizing DefendantẾhreats of criminal prosecution as mere "request[s]," which state election officials may safely disregard. But this ignores the reality that these "request[s] are made on pain of prosecution. As the en banc court majority reinstates the stay on the morning of Election Day, state and local election officials and workers must choose between complying with two conflicting opinions of our court: follow our decision in California and risk prosecution by the United States or accede to the Defendants' demands and risk violating state law. We should not force this impossible decision on election officials and workers on Election Day or the days that follow. I dissent. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, et al. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, et al., No. 26-7303 NOV 3 202 MOLLY C. DWYER, U.S. COURT OF APP DESAI, Circuit Judge, joined by MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GOULD, OWENS, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, dissenting: I join Chief Judge Murguia's dissent in full. I write separately to highlight the serious consequences of our conflicting orders on voters, state election workers, and the overall integrity of today's election. The majority takes the extraordinary step of granting an emergency stay of the district court's temporary restraining order just after the polls open on Election Day. This action was unnecessary and avoidable, and it was incumbent on the majority to consider alternatives that would minimize not maximize confusion in the election. Because this action violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent, I respectfully dissent. In the span of twelve hours in the middle of an ongoing election and on the literal eve of Election Day, our court issued three conflicting orders. First, a three-judge panel granted an emergency stay of the district court's temporary restraining order. To correct the errors in the three-judge panel's order and ameliorate the adverse impact to the administration of the election, a majority of active judges on our court voted to vacate the three-judge panel's order. Mere hours after we vacated the order, and after the polls opened on Election Day, the newly drawn en banc panel decided to simply reinstate the vacated three-judge panel's order.
November 3, 2026 at 8:12 PM
mikesacks.bsky.social
CA9, 2-1, rejects* challenge to Idaho's abortion ban that leaves no exception for health of the mother.

Clinton, GWB judges in majority say Dobbs obliterated that claim.

Clinton judge in dissent says Dobbs preserved it.

*stay pending appeal, but it's clear.

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge WARDLAW; Dissent by Judge BERZON Dr. Seyb brought this action seeking to enjoin Idaho officials from prosecuting him if he performed an abortion where pregnancy posed a nonnegligible risk of serious and lasting harm to the health of the pregnant woman but would not be life threatening. After a bench trial, the district court determined that “the historical record shows that our legal tradition has consistently shielded health-preserving abortions from prosecution since the early days of the common law.” The court enjoined the enforcement of the Defense of Life Act, Idaho Code § 18-622, and the Fetal Heartbeat Act, Idaho Code § 18-8804, in cases where in the physician’s good faith medical judgment that continuation of the pregnancy posed a non-negligible risk “of serious and lasting harm to the health of the pregnant woman,” or of “death of the pregnant woman from self-harm.” The district court subsequently issued a partial stay of its injunction pending appeal, staying “enforcement of the challenged statutes against persons other than Dr. Seyb.” Idaho Attorney General, Raul R. Labrador, and the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney then filed an emergency motion for a complete stay of the district court’s injunction pending appeal. We granted a temporary stay, set a briefing schedule for a response and reply, and scheduled argument on the emergency motion for September 22, 2026. Having considered the parties’ filings and oral argument, we now issue a stay of the district court’s injunction pending appeal. In determining whether to issue a stay, we consider four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Reach Cmty. Dev. v. U. S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 174 F.4th 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 2026) (quoting Nken v Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). ‘“The first two factors ... are the most critical,’ and the court will address the last two factors only once the applicant has satisfied the first two factors.” Washington v. U. S. Dep’t of Ed., 167 F.4th 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2026) (quoting Cmty. Legal Servs. in E. Palo Alto v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 137 F.4th 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2025)). Defendants have made a strong showing of likely success on the merits. The district court reviewed the history and tradition concerning abortions and concluded that “legal tradition has consistently shielded health-preserving abortions from prosecution.” However, the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), plowed the same ground and held that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.” Id. at 292. We think it unlikely that Dr. Seyb will be able to square the district court’s perspective on the history and tradition concerning abortions with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Dobbs. Defendants also make a strong showing of irreparable injury absent a stay. The Supreme Court in Dobbs held that “the authority to regulate abortion must be retuned to the people and their elected representatives.” Id. At this time, Idaho has limited abortions to instances where “necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman.” Idaho Code § 28-622(2)(a)(i). Indeed, Idaho Code § 18-601 states that Idaho has a “profound interest” in preserving fetal life and prefers “by all legal means, live childbirth over abortion.” Accordingly, Idaho has a strong interest in limiting abortions to those allowed under its law. This interest clearly outweighs the potential harm to Dr. Seyb of having to abide by Idaho’s law pending the resolution of this appeal. Defendants’ showings of likelihood of success and irreparable injury are even stronger where the proffered reason for the abortion is the possibility of the woman committing suicide. There are other methods for preventing suicide, and Idaho’s “profound interest” in preserving fetal life reasonably supports the use of those means over the termination of pregnancy. Having determined that Defendants have made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm absent a stay, we stay the enforcement of the district court’s injunction pending appeal. Consistent with this determination, Dr. Seyb’s motion to vacate the partial stay of the injunction is denied.
October 30, 2026 at 6:42 PM
slipopinion.bsky.social
CA9: Could the federal government go to the court of appeals because a district judge did not rule within about fifteen hours on its request to make California set aside the mail-in ballots of 20,000 suspected noncitizens?

slipopinion.com/2026/10/26/u...
United States v. California
The Ninth Circuit dismissed 2–1 the government’s appeal over California mail ballots from suspected noncitizens, holding that the district court’s fifteen hours without a ruling was not a construct…
slipopinion.com
October 27, 2026 at 1:36 PM
gillianbrockell.com
Rather than prepare for their status hearing with Judge Hinderaker (a Trump appointee!), DOJ is asking the appeals court to issue an emergency stay on the judge's orders, arguing judicial interference.

(sorry no courtlistener link, I couldn't find!) ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/26-6950
The Court issued an order requiring Defendants, by 5:00 pm (Arizona time) to file a status report explaining, among other things, why "it is not a reasonable step within Defendants' control to place Plaintiff on that aircraft for return to the United States." ECF No. 26 at 4. This latest filing and order underscore the likelihood of judicial interference with ongoing Executive Branch operations and conduct of international diplomacy, absent a stay pending appeal. Defendants reiterate their request for an immediate administrative stay.
October 23, 2026 at 10:56 PM
uoftpress.bsky.social
A new study in Clinical and Investigative Medicine 49.3 investigates the expression of carbonic anhydrase IX (CA9) and SEC61G in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tissues and adjacent lung tissues. Read more: bit.ly/CIM49-3b #MedicalResearch
October 22, 2026 at 6:45 PM
lifevancouver.bsky.social
バンクーバーのブリティッシュコロンビア大学（UBC）に在籍する杉本寛斎選手（23歳）が、日本のプロ野野球ドラフト会議で横浜DeNAベイスターズから3位指名を受けたことがニュースになっています！

15歳で単身カナダに渡り、北米で野球の腕を磨いてきた杉本選手。最速158kmの速球を誇り、投打の二刀流としても注目されています。2027年4月中に卒業予定で、合流はそれ以降になるようです。
news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/ca9...
DeNAが「カナダの大谷」を逆輸入指名！　15歳で単身留学、最速158kmの二刀流…名門大の“隠し玉”23歳杉本寛斎を3位で（THE ANSWER） - Yahoo!ニュース
「プロ野球ドラフト会議 supported by リポビタンD」が22日、都内のホテルで行われ、DeNAがブリティッシュコロンビア大（カナダ）の23歳・杉本寛斎外野手を3位指名した。15歳で単身カナ
news.yahoo.co.jp
October 23, 2026 at 12:53 AM