Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
Lawyers challenging Trump’s second-term policies might eye the First Circuit, in addition to the Ninth, said University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur Hellman.
November 12, 2024 at 04:24 PM
6 minute read
What You Need to Know
- Shift at 9th Circuit, court's limited en banc may make venue less appealing to blue state AGs.
- 1st Circuit may be viewed as alternative to 9th Circuit in some cases, court watchers say.
- District court assignment, circuit case law also factors.
Just days after President-elect Donald Trump won the election, blue state attorneys general said they are already strategizing on how to fight the incoming administration’s policies—including where to file their lawsuits.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta told Politico last week that his lawyers already "have gone down to the detail of what court do we file in." And other Democratic attorneys general, including in New York, Massachusetts and Maryland, issued similar statements about plans to oppose Trump policies in court.
|
Shifting Ninth Circuit
But will the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—widely considered the country’s most liberal federal appeals court and one Trump has directly criticized—return to being at the center of legal battles over Trump's policies, as was the case in his first term? Or, might lawyers look elsewhere?
Court watchers say they still expect the Ninth Circuit to be the site of plenty of legal action, but more fights could play out elsewhere this time around, especially given how Trump’s conservative appointees chipped away at the circuit’s liberal majority. Trump added 10 judges to the Ninth Circuit, with 13 of the court’s 29 active judges now appointed by Republican presidents and 16 by Democrats.
On top of that, the court has a “limited en banc” process that’s different from other courts. Instead of all active judges hearing en banc cases, the Ninth Circuit picks 10 active judges randomly plus the court’s chief judge to hear appeals en banc.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers, Law Groups Oppose Proposal to Require Court Approval for Amicus Briefs
9th Circuit Judges Weigh if Section 230 Shields Grindr From Defective Design Claims
6th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Trending Stories
- 1'No Finer Work': New York City Council Confirms Next Corporation Counsel
- 2Here’s What Litigators Want For Christmas
- 3Reported Refusal to Officiate Gay Wedding Prompts Review by NY Judicial Misconduct Watchdog
- 4Frozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
- 5CooperSurgical Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250