Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
PurposivismTextualism
Opinions in immigration cases emphasize careful parsing of the Immigration and Nationality Act text to determine eligibility for relief and the Attorney General's authority to proceed by adjudication rather than regulation. Delgado v. Holder ↗ Delgado v. Mukasey ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
The case concerned a family-owned cosmetics company, Mindys Cosmetics, suing attorney Kia Kamran and other family members over his 2007 registration of two company trademarks in the name of Sonya Dakar, with claims including legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, and conversion. Kamran moved to strike the claims against him under California's anti-SLAPP statute, contending they arose from protected conduct, but the district court denied the motion. On interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial, ruling that Mindys had shown a reasonable probability of prevailing on its claims based on evidence that Kamran acted without advising the company and registered the marks on instructions from other family members.
Hernan Ismael Delgado, a native of El Salvador who overstayed a visitor visa, petitioned for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief and ordered him removed, based on three prior DUI convictions deemed particularly serious crimes plus a failure to show likely future torture. The court granted the petition in part and denied it in part, holding that the Attorney General may determine by case-by-case adjudication that a non-aggravated-felony offense is particularly serious for both withholding and asylum purposes. It ruled that judicial review of the particularly serious crime finding is unavailable for withholding claims but available for asylum claims, and concluded that Delgado's DUIs did not meet the particularly serious standard, remanding the asylum application. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act provisions governing eligibility for relief.
This case involved the United States condemning easements on approximately 14 acres of private land in Fresno County, California, on behalf of the Western Area Power Administration to construct a high-voltage transmission line known as the Path 15 Upgrade. Landowners challenged the action, contending that it lacked sufficient congressional authorization, did not qualify as a public use, and violated California siting and other state laws. The district court dismissed the challenges and entered summary judgment for the government, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that multiple federal statutes authorized the condemnation, the project served a public purpose, and the Supremacy Clause preempted state-law compliance requirements because Congress had not expressly directed otherwise.
Hernan Ismael Delgado, a native of El Salvador who overstayed a visitor visa, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision ordering his removal and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA determined that Delgado's three prior DUI convictions constituted particularly serious crimes barring him from asylum and withholding relief, and that he had not shown a likelihood of torture if returned to El Salvador. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction to review the merits of the particularly serious crime determinations and denied it in part on the remaining claims. The court deferred to the BIA's interpretation that the relevant statutes permit the Attorney General to designate a non-aggravated felony as particularly serious through case-by-case adjudication rather than regulation, and it found substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral.
Steve Houston, a Nevada state prisoner convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and related firearm offenses, appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that the state trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by denying a motion to continue the trial for retained counsel and by failing to address a conflict of interest in his public defender's prior representation of the prosecution's key witness. The Ninth Circuit held that the Nevada Supreme Court's rejection of the continuance claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the trial judge acted within discretion by weighing timing, witness impact, and diligence just days before trial. The court vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance, citing the need for further factfinding on the attorney's knowledge and actions regarding the witness's prior related case.
The case involved the United States condemning transmission easements on 14.02 acres of land in California for the Western Area Power Administration to build a high-voltage line as part of the Path 15 Upgrade project aimed at easing electric power constraints. Landowners challenged the condemnation, claiming it lacked congressional authorization, was not for a public use under the Takings Clause, and violated California law. The district court struck the challenges, and after the parties stipulated to compensation of $7,374.32, it entered summary judgment for the government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that WAPA possessed statutory authority from multiple federal enactments including the Department of Energy Organization Act, the project qualified as a public use, and federal law controlled over any conflicting state requirements.