April 2, 2025

This report is provided for case identification and background information only and does not reflect the views of the court. When a case is heard or reheard en banc, the en banc court assumes jurisdiction over the entire case, see 28 U.S.C. § 46(c), regardless of the issue or issues that may have caused any member of the Court to vote to hear the case en banc. Summerlin v. Stewart, 309 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2002).

Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans v. Mayes, No. 22-16490 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  117 F.4th 1165 (9th Cir. 2024) 

Order Taking Case En Banc: 2025 WL 843314 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: March 18, 2025

Status: To be calendared week of June 23, 2025, in Seattle, Washington

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining two Arizona election law amendments aimed at curtailing the risk of unlawful voting: (1) a provision that allows the cancellation of a voter’s registration if a county receives confirmation from another county that the voter has moved and is registered in that new county; and (2) a provision that makes it a felony to knowingly provide a mechanism for voting to another person registered in another state.

Ratha v. Rubicon Resources, LLC, No. 23-55299

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 111 F.4th 946 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 2025 WL 689487 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: March 4, 2025

Status: To be calendared week of June 23, 2025, in Seattle, Washington

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) for relief from judgment in an action under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.

Gopher Media, LLC v. Malone, No. 24-2626 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: Not applicable

Order Taking Case En Banc: 2025 WL 671766 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: March 3, 2025

Status: To be calendared week of June 23, 2025, in Seattle, Washington 

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s denial of a motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute. 

United States v. Rivera-Valdez, No. 21-30177

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 105 F.4th 1118 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  125 F.4th 991 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  January 14, 2025 

Status: Argued and submitted at 10:00 a.m. on March 19, 2025, in San Francisco, California

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Murguia, Judges Gould, Callahan, M. Smith, Ikuta, Bennett, Miller, Forrest, Sanchez, H.A. Thomas, and Desai

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s denial of Leopoldo Rivera-Valdes’s motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 in a case in which Rivera-Valdes, who failed to appear at his 1994 deportation proceeding, argued that immigration authorities violated his due process rights by ordering him deported in absentia despite the notice of the deportation hearing being returned as undeliverable or unclaimed.  

Health Freedom Defense Fund,, Inc. v. Carvalho, No. 22-55908 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 104 F.4th 715 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  127 F.4th 750 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: February 4, 2025

Status: Argued and submitted at 10:00 a.m. on March 18, 2025, in San Francisco, California

Members of En Banc Court: Chief Judge Murguia, Judges Wardlaw, Callahan, Owens, Bennett, Bade, Collins, Lee, Forrest, Mendoza, and Desai

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ action alleging that the COVID-19 vaccination policy of the Los Angeles Unified School District—which, until twelve days after oral argument, required employees to get the COVID-19 vaccination or lose their jobs—interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.  

Parker v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 22-35695

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 112 F.4th 687 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 122 F.4th 1072 (9th Cir. 2024)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: December 12, 2024 

Status: Argued and submitted at 1:30 p.m. on March 19, 2025, in San Francisco, California

Members of En Banc Court: Chief Judge Murguia, Judges Graber, Wardlaw, Owens, Forrest, Sung, H.A. Thomas, Mendoza, Desai, Johnstone, and de Alba

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s judgment in favor of BNSF Railway Company in an action brought under the anti-retaliation provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act by Curtis Rookaird through his estate representative Paul Parker.

United States v. Duarte, No. 22-50048

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  101 F.4th 657 (9th Cir. 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  108 F.4th 786 (9th Cir. 2024)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: July 17, 2024

Status: Argued and submitted 1:30 p.m. on December 11, 2024, in Pasadena, California 

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW, RAWLINSON, IKUTA, OWENS, R. NELSON, COLLINS, VANDYKE, H.A. THOMAS, MENDOZA, Jr., and DESAI, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from criminal conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, on Second Amendment grounds. 

United States v. Moyle/Idaho, Nos. 23-35440, 23-35450

Three-Judge Panel Order: 83 F.4th 1130 (9th Cir. 2023)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 82 F.4th 1296 (9th Cir. 2023)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: October 10, 2023

Status: Appeals dismissed pursuant to the parties' stipulated agreement 

Members of En Banc Court:  MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GOULD, CALLAHAN, M. SMITH, Jr., OWENS, MILLER, BRESS, FORREST, VANDYKE, KOH, and MENDOZA, Jr., Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining Idaho Code section 18-622, which makes it a crime for a healthcare provider to perform an abortion unless, among a few other exceptions, “the physician determine[s], in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”

Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles, Nos. 21-55994, 21-55995

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 96 F.4th 1209 (9th Cir. 2024) 

Order Taking Case En Banc:  106 F.4th 940 (9th Cir. 2024)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: July 8, 2024

Status: Argued and submitted 2:00 p.m. on September 24, 2024, in San Francisco, California

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and RAWLINSON, NGUYEN, R. NELSON, BADE, COLLINS, BRESS, BUMATAY, H.A. THOMAS, MENDOZA, Jr., and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department, and Officer McBride in plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the shooting death of Daniel Hernandez during a confrontation with LAPD officers. 

Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., No. 22-15815

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 87 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 101 F.4th 706 (9th Cir. 2024)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: May 14, 2024

Status: Argued and submitted 9:30 a.m. on September 26, 2024, in San Francisco, California  

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW, RAWLINSON, CALLAHAN, CHRISTEN, FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, COLLINS, BUMATAY, H.A. THOMAS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s dismissal, due to lack of specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants, of a putative class action alleging that Shopify, Inc. violated various California privacy and unfair competition laws because it deliberately concealed its involvement in certain consumer transactions.

Huntsman v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, No. 21-56056

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  76 F.4th 962 (9th Cir. 2023)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  94 F.4th 781 (9th Cir. 2024) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  March 1, 2024 

En Banc Opinion:127 F.4th 784 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of En Banc Opinion: January 31, 2025  

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and M. SMITH, Jr., NGUYEN, OWENS, FRIEDLAND, BRESS, BUMATAY, VANDYKE, SUNG, SANCHEZ, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:    Appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in a diversity action brought by James Huntsman, a former member of the Church, alleging fraud under California state law.

Holding: The en banc court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”) in an action brought by James Huntsman, a former member of the Church, alleging that the Church had committed fraud by using tithing funds to finance commercial endeavors despite stating that it would not do so.

Stein v. Kaiser Foundation Health, No. 22-15862

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  2024 WL 107099 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2024)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  103 F.4th 543 (9th Cir. 2024)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: May 4, 2024

En Banc Opinion: 115 F.4th 1244 (9th Cir. 2024)

Date of En Banc Opinion: September 24, 2024

Members of En Banc Court: Chief Judge Murguia, Judges Rawlinson, M. Smith, Nguyen, Bade, Lee, Forrest, Bumatay, Sanchez, Desai, and Johnstone

Subject Matter:  Appeal by relators Marcia Stein and Rodolfo Bone from the district court's dismissal of their False Claims Act (FCA) suit as barred by that statute's first-to-file rule. 

Holding:  Reversing in part the district court’s dismissal of an action under the False Claims Act for lack of jurisdiction under the Act’s first-to-file rule, the en banc court overruled circuit precedent, held that the first-to-file rule is not jurisdictional, and remanded to the three-judge panel for further proceedings.

Project Veritas v. Schmidt, No. 22-35271 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 72 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2023)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 95 F.4th 1152 (9th Cir. 2024)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: March 19, 2024

En Banc Opinion: 125 F.4th 929 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of En Banc Opinion: January 7, 2025

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, BENNETT, COLLINS, LEE, SUNG, SANCHEZ, DESAI, JOHNSTONE, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a complaint challenging, as an unconstitutional restriction of protected speech, Section 165.540(1)(c) of the Oregon Revised Code, which generally prohibits unannounced recordings of conversations, subject to several exceptions. 

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint brought by Project Veritas, a nonprofit media organization engaged almost exclusively in undercover journalism, alleging that Oregon’s conversational privacy statute violates the First Amendment.

Teter v. Lopez, No. 20-15948 

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  76 F.4th 938 (9th Cir. 2023)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  93 F.4th 1150 (9th Cir. 2024) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  February 22, 2024 

En Banc Opinion: 125 F.4th 1301 (9th Cir. 2025)

Date of En Banc Opinion: January 22, 2025

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GOULD, NGUYEN, R. NELSON, MILLER, BADE, COLLINS, LEE, VANDYKE, SANCHEZ, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:    Appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Hawaii state officials in plaintiffs' action challenging Hawaii’s ban on butterfly knives, Haw. Rev. State. § 134- 53(a), under the Second Amendment.  

Holding:  The en banc court vacated the district court’s summary judgment for the Hawaii Attorney General and the Hawaii Sheriff Division Administrator in an action involving a Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii’s statute prohibiting butterfly knives, and remanded for further proceedings.

Duncan v. Bonta, No. 23-55805

Three-Judge Panel Opinion:  Not applicable

Order Taking Case En Banc:  83 F.4th 803 (9th Cir. 2023) 

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  October 10, 2023 

En Banc Order and Opinion: 2025 WL 866011 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025); 2025 WL 867583 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025)

Date of En Banc Opinion: March 20, 2025

Members of En Banc Court: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and S.R. THOMAS, GRABER, WARDLAW, PAEZ, BERZON, IKUTA, HURWITZ, R. NELSON, BUMATAY and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges

Subject Matter:    Appeal from the district court’s order declaring unconstitutional and enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code section 32310(a), which bans large capacity magazines, defined as “any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.”  

Holding: The en banc court held that it had statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 46(c)—which authorizes courts of appeals to decide cases and controversies en banc, and prescribes the composition of the en banc court in resolving cases and controversies—to decide this appeal.  On the merits, the en banc court held that a California law banning the possession of large-capacity magazines comports with the Second Amendment, reversed the district court’s contrary conclusion, and remanded with the instruction to enter judgment in favor of the Attorney General of the State of California.