Malcolm Rivera
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the largest of the 13 appellate courts in the US, with 29 judges. It has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington state, and the US territory of Guam. The Ninth Circuit has been involved in several landmark cases, including those concerning the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In the case of Young v. Hawaii, the Ninth Circuit diverged from its historical position and ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to carry firearms openly. In another case, two Arizona public school districts and several students sued the state, alleging that a state law requiring the transfer of a portion of school districts' funds to a state fund violated the Federal Impact Aid Law and the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the US Constitution. The Ninth Circuit has also been unique in adopting a per se rule against political subdivisions having standing to sue their parent state.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Ninth Circuit's stance on political subdivisions suing their parent state | The Ninth Circuit has a per se rule against a political subdivision having standing to sue its parent state |
| Examples | City of S. Lake Tahoe v. Cal. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 625 F.2d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1980); Palomar Pomerado Health Sys. v. Belshe, 180 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 1999) |
| Other circuits' stance | The Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits reject a per se rule; the Second Circuit may have adopted a per se rule in City of New York v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 923, 929 (2d Cir. 1973) |
| Number of judges | 29 |
| Recent landmark ruling | Young v. Hawaii, in which the court found that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of Americans to carry firearms openly |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Political subdivisions suing parent states
The Ninth Circuit has adopted a per se rule against a political subdivision having standing to sue its parent state. This means that political subdivisions, such as counties, cities, or towns, are generally prevented from suing their parent states in federal court due to the concept of state sovereign immunity. This rule was established in the case of City of S. Lake Tahoe v. Cal. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency in 1980.
However, there have been challenges to this rule within the Ninth Circuit, as seen in the case of Seattle School District, where the Ninth Circuit held that school districts should have standing to sue their states. This challenge argued that the majority's decision was based on a single discredited Ninth Circuit opinion and failed to consider controlling Supreme Court caselaw and constitutional principles.
Other circuits have also expressed skepticism about a per se rule. For example, in the case of City of Charleston v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of W. Va., the Fourth Circuit noted that the political subdivision standing doctrine is "unclear". Similarly, in Amato v. Wilentz, the Third Circuit found that "judicial support for this rule may be waning with time". These cases highlight that the issue of political subdivision standing to sue parent states is not definitively resolved and continues to be a subject of debate and interpretation in different circuits.
Despite the Ninth Circuit's rule, there may be exceptions where political subdivisions can bring suit against their parent states. The Supreme Court has consistently refused to extend Eleventh Amendment protection to lawsuits against political subdivisions. The Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1795, addresses sovereign immunity and prevents federal courts from hearing cases involving citizens of one state suing another state. While it generally bars citizens from suing their own state in federal court, it does not explicitly prohibit political subdivisions from doing so. Therefore, there may be circumstances where political subdivisions can challenge the constitutionality of state laws or assert their rights in federal court, depending on the specific circumstances and the interpretation of the respective circuit court.
Trump's Call to End the US Constitution
You may want to see also
School districts suing states
The Ninth Circuit has adopted a per se rule against a political subdivision having standing to sue its parent state. This includes school districts suing states. In the case of two Arizona public school districts suing the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, the district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the districts were political subdivisions of the state and therefore lacked standing to sue the state in federal court.
However, the Ninth Circuit's rule has been called into question, with some arguing that political subdivisions should not be denied standing to sue their states. The majority opinion in these cases has been criticized for relying on a single discredited Ninth Circuit opinion and for failing to reconcile its decision with controlling Supreme Court caselaw and constitutional principles.
The laws and procedures for suing a school district vary from state to state, but it is generally a complicated and tedious process that requires an attorney. Most states offer protections to school districts, making it difficult to bring legal action against them. In most cases, lawsuits against school districts are only allowed in instances of gross misconduct, willful negligence, or illegal actions such as discrimination. Before filing a lawsuit, individuals must typically file an administrative complaint, outlining their complaint in detail and presenting evidence. This complaint is then reviewed, and if it is found to have merit, the issue may be corrected without the need for a lawsuit. If the issue is not satisfactorily resolved, state law may permit the filing of a lawsuit.
What Constitutes Reasonable Wear and Tear on Walls?
You may want to see also
The Ninth Circuit's per se rule
The Ninth Circuit is unique among its counterparts for its per se rule against political subdivisions having standing to sue their parent state. This rule was established in the City of S. Lake Tahoe v. Cal. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 625 F.2d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1980) case. The Ninth Circuit's decision was based on the argument that political subdivisions, such as school districts, are part of the state and therefore lack the standing to sue the state in federal court.
The per se rule is a judge-created rule that has been applied in civil antitrust enforcement cases. It stands in contrast to the "rule of reason," which requires fact-finders to balance the conduct's anticompetitive harm against any procompetitive benefits. While the per se rule has been consistently applied by circuit courts in criminal contexts, there are differing justifications and standards across different circuits. The Ninth Circuit's per se rule has been called into question by other circuits, with some expressing skepticism without definitively resolving the issue.
The large size of the Ninth Circuit, with 29 active judges, has also been a point of concern. Critics argue that the large size leads to procedural inefficiencies, jurisprudential unpredictability, and an unusual en banc process. The en banc process in the Ninth Circuit differs from other circuits as it involves a limited review by the Chief Judge and a panel of 10 randomly selected judges. This has raised concerns about intracircuit conflicts of law, where different groups of judges deliver contradictory opinions, causing uncertainty in district courts.
The Ninth Circuit has also been involved in cases related to homelessness, such as Martin v. City of Boise, which transformed how local governments address homelessness. The Ninth Circuit's decision in this case was based on the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment," stating that people cannot be punished for things beyond their control. However, critics argue that this decision and its reasoning are flawed and have urged the Supreme Court to overrule it.
The Constitution's Role in the Civil War
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Second Amendment and the right to bear arms
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which was ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment's intended scope has been the subject of considerable debate, with some arguing for an individual right to possess firearms, while others point to the role of a well-regulated militia in preserving a state's right to self-defense. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting this amendment, with landmark cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) clarifying the scope of the Second Amendment.
The text of the Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This language has been interpreted differently by various groups, leading to ongoing debates and legal challenges. The "individual right theory" asserts that the Second Amendment creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms, restricting legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession. On the other hand, the "collective rights theory" argues that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns, and that local, state, and federal governments have the authority to regulate firearms without violating a constitutional right.
The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense within their home. This ruling clarified that the right is not unlimited and does not prevent long-standing prohibitions, such as those barring felons or the mentally ill from possessing firearms. Additionally, the Court acknowledged that certain restrictions on the carrying of dangerous or unusual weapons may be permissible. The subsequent case of McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) further strengthened Second Amendment protections by applying the amendment's restrictions to state and local governments to the same extent as the federal government.
The Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, has taken a different approach regarding political subdivisions and their standing to sue their parent states. It has adopted a per se rule against political subdivisions, such as school districts, having standing to sue their parent state. This position is unique to the Ninth Circuit and has been questioned by other circuits. The case of City of South Lake Tahoe v. California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1980) established the Ninth Circuit's stance, which was later reiterated in Palomar Pomerado Health System v. Belshe (1999). However, other circuits, such as the Fourth Circuit in City of Charleston v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia (1995), have expressed skepticism without definitively resolving the issue. The Ninth Circuit's rule has not gone unchallenged, with judges acknowledging the existence of contrary views in other circuits.
The US Constitution: Its Core Principles and Values
You may want to see also
The role of circuit courts
The federal court system in the United States has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. The district courts are the trial courts, the circuit courts are the first level of appeal, and the Supreme Court is the final level of appeal in the federal system. The federal court system is structured this way to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes and interpreting the law, with checks and balances in place to ensure consistency and fairness.
Circuit courts, also known as courts of appeal, are an important part of the federal court system. There are 13 circuit courts in the United States, including 11 regional circuits, a DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit. These courts are spread across different regions of the country, with each circuit covering multiple states. For example, the Fifth Circuit includes the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The circuit courts are intermediate appellate courts, sitting between the district courts and the Supreme Court in the judicial hierarchy. They hear appeals from the district courts and review whether the law was correctly applied at the trial court level.
Circuit courts also play a role in interpreting the law and ensuring consistency in legal principles across their jurisdictions. They can issue opinions that provide guidance to lower courts within their circuits, helping to standardize legal interpretations and applications. Additionally, circuit courts may identify conflicts or discrepancies in the law and bring them to the attention of the Supreme Court for further review and potential resolution. This aspect of their role contributes to the development of the law and the clarification of legal principles.
In conclusion, circuit courts serve as an essential intermediary appellate body in the federal court system. They provide a mechanism for reviewing trial court decisions, ensuring the correct application of the law, and offering guidance to lower courts. By hearing appeals and issuing opinions, circuit courts contribute to the consistent and fair administration of justice across their respective jurisdictions. Their role helps maintain the integrity of the judicial system and protects the rights of individuals and entities seeking legal redress.
Interpreting the Constitution: Federal Courts' Role and Limits
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a per se rule against a political subdivision having standing to sue its parent state.
Yes, in some cases. While the Ninth Circuit has a per se rule against this, other circuits have expressed skepticism about a per se rule without definitively resolving the issue.
The Ninth Circuit is one of the 13 circuit courts in the federal court system. It has multiple judges, ranging from six on the First Circuit to twenty-nine on the Ninth Circuit.
