Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
FOR PUBLICATION
v.
SUMMARY **
The panel held that: the record left little basis for denying
that climate change was occurring at an increasingly rapid
pace; copious expert evidence established that the
unprecedented rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
stemmed from fossil fuel combustion and will wreak havoc
on the Earth’s climate if unchecked; the record conclusively
established that the federal government has long understood
the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide
emissions; and the record established that the government’s
COUNSEL
OPINION
I.
2The plaintiffs also assert that section 201 of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486, § 201, 106 Stat. 2776, 2866 (codified at
15 U.S.C. § 717b(c)), which requires expedited authorization for certain
natural gas imports and exports “without modification or delay,” is
unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The plaintiffs also challenge
DOE/FE Order No. 3041, which authorizes exports of liquefied natural
gas from the proposed Jordan Cove terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon.
(13 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 13 of 64
3 The court found that age is not a suspect class, but allowed the
equal protection claim to proceed on a fundamental rights theory.
(14 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 14 of 64
II.
A.
B.
1.
2.
Health & Human Servs., 271 F.3d 301, 308 (D.C. Cir.
2001)).
3.
procedural right to protect his concrete interests can assert that right
without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and
immediacy.”).
(26 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 26 of 64
The plaintiffs argue that the district court need not itself
make policy decisions, because if their general request for a
remedial plan is granted, the political branches can decide
what policies will best “phase out fossil fuel emissions and
draw down excess atmospheric CO2.” To be sure, in some
circumstances, courts may order broad injunctive relief
while leaving the “details of implementation” to the
government’s discretion. Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493,
537–38 (2011). But, even under such a scenario, the
plaintiffs’ request for a remedial plan would subsequently
require the judiciary to pass judgment on the sufficiency of
the government’s response to the order, which necessarily
would entail a broad range of policymaking. And inevitably,
this kind of plan will demand action not only by the
Executive, but also by Congress. Absent court intervention,
the political branches might conclude—however
inappropriately in the plaintiffs’ view—that economic or
defense considerations called for continuation of the very
programs challenged in this suit, or a less robust approach to
addressing climate change than the plaintiffs believe is
necessary. “But we cannot substitute our own assessment
for the Executive’s [or Legislature’s] predictive judgments
on such matters, all of which ‘are delicate, complex, and
involve large elements of prophecy.’” Hawaii, 138 S. Ct.
at 2421 (quoting Chi. & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S.
Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948)). And, given the
complexity and long-lasting nature of global climate change,
the court would be required to supervise the government’s
compliance with any suggested plan for many decades. See
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1300
(9th Cir. 1992) (“Injunctive relief could involve
(27 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 27 of 64
they do not suggest how an order from this Court can achieve
that level, other than by ordering the government to develop
a plan. Although the plaintiffs’ invitation to get the ball
rolling by simply ordering the promulgation of a plan is
beguiling, it ignores that an Article III court will thereafter
be required to determine whether the plan is sufficient to
remediate the claimed constitutional violation of the
plaintiffs’ right to a “climate system capable of sustaining
human life.” We doubt that any such plan can be supervised
or enforced by an Article III court. And, in the end, any plan
is only as good as the court’s power to enforce it.
C.
Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149 (1912)); Luther
v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 36–37, 39 (1849).
III.
REVERSED.
1I agree with the majority that plaintiffs need not bring their claims
under the APA. See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 801
(1992); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603–04 (1988).
(34 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 34 of 64
I.
What sets this harm apart from all others is not just its
magnitude, but its irreversibility. The devastation might
look and feel somewhat different if future generations could
simply pick up the pieces and restore the Nation. But
plaintiffs’ experts speak of a certain level of global warming
as “locking in” this catastrophic damage. Put more starkly
by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harold R. Wanless, “[a]tmospheric
2
NOAA, Technical Rep. NOS CO-OPS 083, Global and Regional
Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States 23 (Jan. 2017).
(35 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 35 of 64
II.
A.
4
Available at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/0
1-12-02-0274.
(39 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 39 of 64
405 U.S. 56, 74 (1972), which held Oregon’s wrongful detainer statute
governing landlord/tenant disputes constitutional. The perpetuity
principle, however, cabins the right and avoids any slippery slope. While
the principle’s goal is to preserve the most fundamental individual rights
to life, liberty, and property, it is not triggered absent an existential threat
to the country arising from a “point of no return” that is, at least in part,
of the government’s own making.
(42 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 42 of 64
B.
1.
....
(47 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 47 of 64
2.
harm based on gradually warming air temperatures and rising seas. But
the Supreme Court sidestepped such questions of the concreteness of the
plaintiffs’ injuries by finding that “[Massachusetts’s] stake in the
outcome of this case is sufficiently concrete to warrant the exercise of
federal judicial power.” Id. at 519. Here and now, the plaintiffs submit
undisputed scientific evidence that their distinct and discrete injuries are
caused by climate change brought about by emissions from fossil-fuel
combustion. They need not rely on the “special solicitude,” id. at 520,
of a state to be heard. Regardless, any distinction would go to the
concreteness or particularity of plaintiffs’ injuries and not to the issue of
redressability.
(50 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 50 of 64
3.
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962); see also Zivotofsky
ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 195–201 (2012)
(discussing and applying Baker factors); Vieth v. Jubelirer,
541 U.S. 267, 277–90 (2004) (same); Nixon v. United States,
506 U.S. 224, 228–38 (1993) (same); Chadha, 462 U.S.
at 940–43 (same). 10 In some sense, these factors are
frontloaded in significance. “We have characterized the first
three factors as ‘constitutional limitations of a court’s
jurisdiction’ and the other three factors as ‘prudential
considerations.’” Republic of Marshall Islands v. United
States, 865 F.3d 1187, 1200 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Corrie
See Marbury, 5 U.S. at 165–66 (“By the constitution of the United States,
the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the
exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only
to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.”).
The modern incarnation of the doctrine has existed relatively unaltered
since its exposition in Baker in 1962. Although the majority disclaims
the applicability of the political question doctrine, see Maj. Op. at 31,
n.9, the opinion’s references to the lack of discernable standards and its
reliance on Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019), as a basis
for finding this case nonjusticiable blur any meaningful distinction
between the doctrines of standing and political question.
(53 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 53 of 64
Baker, 369 U.S. at 217; see also Corrie, 503 F.3d at 982
(“We will not find a political question ‘merely because [a]
decision may have significant political overtones.’”)
(quoting Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y,
478U.S. 221, 230 (1986)). Rather, when detecting the
presence of a “political question,” courts must make a
“discriminating inquiry into the precise facts and posture of
the particular case” and refrain from “resolution by any
semantic cataloguing.” Baker, 369 U.S. at 217.
12 Rucho does not turn exclusively on the first Baker factor and
acknowledges that there are some areas of districting that courts may
police, notwithstanding the Elections Clause’s “assign[ment] to state
legislatures the power to prescribe the ‘Times, Places and Manner of
holding Elections’ for Members of Congress, while giving Congress the
power to ‘make or alter’ any such regulations.” Rucho, 139 S. Ct.
at 2495. Instead, Rucho holds that a combination of the text (as
illuminated by historical practice) and absence of clear judicial standards
precludes judicial review of excessively partisan gerrymanders. See
infra Part II.B.4.
(56 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-1, Page 56 of 64
4.
III.
:2#:%2$
%""
#
$)$52
$
$
%""
"
%
!,<
36=6
02:): ( +
,<36=6 $:
!
"
# !
!%
$"
"
"
#
%
&
""
:2)#)2($
'
!
!
! %""
!$
$
"
#
!
0$2
%
"
'
"$
!
,<
36=6
"
(
"
"
&
)
"
!
"
)$2
)
*
+
"
"%,-
$ "
A$
$
%""
" ,)
"
%
!,<
0
36=6!B
USA 14, 202
'
*"
.'
"$
" "
!(
.
$
"
"
v
na ry !
Julia n Janua
! ) "
)
,@!,-3@!
in
*$ "
"
8CC"
cited chived o
"
.
"
!
"
"/ $
""
C
C%""
C
-393,9-,9-,6<>
r
82 a
8$#
"
0
"
(
360 $
%""
!
18-
)
"
3,!6 36=6DED;3
No.
1
)"
$ 36==!%#
"
! )
$
" '
#
8
2
!)" /! )
" #
+
)")
#!3@44!,6-E
,=F?
""
)
"
" 34
"
51 '
$
/
+
"
!
36
"
)
"
7
!"
)
"
#:220)(
" (
!
"
"
" 2
"
%""
>=
)
7
"
36=6?
"
"
"
"
" "
"
!"
!
(2G$
&
!
"
"
*
!!
! %""
>@0
"
36=6?
"
"
!
!
55
8
"
$
9
!
7
%""
3
2*
5
!
":
,$
"
& "
!
"
;$
"
""
"
""
"
<$
7
"
2
"
7 "" $
"
"
""
*
"
"
3
7 !
"
$"
"
7 2* !
&
"
!
"
9
"
(66 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 2 of 23
"
9
!
"
!
""!
"
!
9 !
$
"
9
" "
:
"
$
"
!
H
H
2*
" H
!
"7
"
H
H
"
!
"
"
$
*
"
""!"
"
H
""
)
!"
*
! & !
9 !
"*)"
" "
"
"9
"
!
" " ! "
""
"
!
*
" 2*
"
" "
""!
" "
"
"
""
"
!
"
!
"
"
"
"
!
""
""
"
&
"
!
" 5
"
H$&
"
"
""!
5
""H
""H
""!"
"
"
!
"
!
"
!
""
"
,
*
" 5 2*
"
"
; )
7
$
"
v .
!< 5
"
!
na ry
Julia n Janua
"
"
!
"!
in
!*"$
"
"
3 60 82 a
"5
!
"!
"" "
"
8 -
" I
"
"
1
No.
!
" !
"
! 4
"
"
! 8
7
""
$&
(
! "7
7
)"
"
" !)
"*
"
7 >
3
!,
"
$
" (
$
"
! "
"
!
&
!
"
!
""
!
""
" !
"
"
3; $
2
*
"
"
!"0 !
!%
! "
"
" "
(
!
"
"
!
na
!
ry
i n Julia n Janua
%!
5
"
!
%
"
!
cited chived o
"
!
"
! ,-
ar
*"
82
"
&
6 0
,
- 3
o. 18
$
"
N
" "
$7
"
"&
"
" "
":
)
)
"
,3
!
"
"
!
"
&
"
"
7 "
"
"
!
" $
!
"
""
"" "
!
"
)7
"" "
"
* !
*
$
!
)
,,
"
!
"
"
"
7
! ,;
*
!
""
"
" &
!")
!"
":
!
"
! "
"
!
""
* )
"
7 $
"
0
!
!
"
7
!
!
"
$"
!
7
&
"
I
" ,< .
!
$
"
7
"
I
"
"
7
"
I
!
""
.
,4
"
" L) !
I
)L
!
"
"
"
&"
"
& ,F $
I
I !
!
!
" $
(68 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 4 of 23
,6
""
"""
!
""
"
"
" )
! "
,= "
""
!
!
"
"
"
!
!
"
#
!
!
"
;3
$
""
" "2*
""
!
"!
"
7
)" "
"
I
$
"
"
*
8
,: "
$
"
""
"
7 !
""
' "
!
"
7
!
"*
;:
$
""
"
$
"
!
!
"
! 7
!"
na ry
"
")"
"
7
in Julia n Janua
!
0
!
cited chived o
*
" ! &"
!
!
7 )
r
82 a
"
*
60
"
I
3
18-
*
"
""
No.
"
$
!
"
""
""
"
"
"
!
""
"!"
"
)
! #
""
"7 !
" ;F
"
)
!
"
"
"
!
""
) * :
" !
;6
"
!
""
!"
? ;=
'
"
!)
7
! 7
" ""
"""
"
"
*
!
I
"
!
"
"
&I
"
&"
"
! *
"*
!
"
*
"*
$
"*
"
$
7 !
!
"
"
$
&
!
"
I
& &
$
"
!
I
&
"
&
"
!
L)
!
"
"
"
)
"
/
.
"
"0
"
"
7
$
"
"$
7
"
"
!
#
(69 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 5 of 23
"
;@
"
": H
*
"
H
"
"
!
7
"
7
'
"7 ""
!
"
!
<-
""*!
$
"*
!
!
*
7
(
!
"
)
"
!
"
2*
I
*
"
$"
$5
"(
"
"
*! &"
'
<3 $
(
"
$5
"
!
"
$
"
:)
$
L
)
$
<, $
" 7
"
$
"$
1
!
I
!
" *
(% ""
0
USA 14, 202
"
"
!
v.
# $
"#!
na ry
Julia n Janua
: ! M!
"
in
"
!
cited chived o
"
7
7 "
7
r
!
!
*
"
360 82 a
"$
") "
18-
!!" !
"
"
No.
! $
"'
"
(
"
!
+
"
""
""
""")
<4
!
<F
!
"
2
)
)
"
"
"
"
"
8
$*
"
"
0
(70 of 91)
Case: 18-36082,
01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 6 of 23
$'
$
%!
7
"
"
"
"""
'
(
' )
"
"
!
7
"
$
"
1
"
!
! ! "!
2
"
"
)
1 !
"3--!---
"
"
"
"
(
2
! N
"
!
"
(%
"
!
" "
"
"
7
+
"
"
'
"'
/'
"
"
!
$
)
"#
)
"
!
*
"
+
"
)
%
!
"
$J
L!
#L !
"
7
"
$
2 *
"
"/$""""
)
)/
!
"
" :
$
"
))" "
)
"
$
"$
"& ! & "$
"
* &
&
(
3
<6 %
"
!
$
$5
"
"
"
$
"
"
)
"
"
:
2
9 "
:
0
v. USA 14, 202
"
"0 ! !
" )
&""
"
" "
"
na ry
Julia n Janua
7
"
L
in
"
" (
$
"
)
cited chived o
"
5
r
)7 "
!(
!
0 82 a
.(
! "
"!
$!%
$
%
"
36
18-
* #
$
"
No.
! "
"
."
)$
"
! 9
!
"
" $
"$
)
"
)
"
2
$
" *
"
$ "
*
"
"I *
"
.
"/"
*
.
""
)
0+
"O
!
% 0)(%
:P058$%#QI
I
"
!
"
!
" !
<,<6
!
"I
$
"2* P058
#QI
1! "
P
;=!
Q$
"
2* P/QI "
" * !
"(
#$ 8A
"
P/%$O%:O%: Q(#$ 3R;<BI
$
" "8A
%
H ,<36=6$
$
%""
"
! 33=;<(#$ BP
<<
Q
:
%53@036=62
8P3Q$A"
"
'
B
"
P$%
!,-036=6QP,Q$
A/'
B
*
" 36=F!
*
* I
LL
* '
" P
$%!3436=6I
!/
,84-F!
QP;Q$A
"#>#?
B
3F36=F
%1
;36=F
I
"
" *
$%P *
"#1
%!GGG)!@;4E<=QP<Q$
A
!B
(71 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 7 of 23
%
! #1
#
"
!#!
,=
"!
36=6!( +
!36=6P
!(
;-3FQ
)
"
* "
"
2* !
$%1"
"
*
"
"P
<,<6!
Q)
!
!
"
$%
*
"
"
$"
*
*
"
" $%1
3 #
"
A
"
!B
, $
"
A&!B !
;
8A
"!B
< #*
A
B !
4 #
!
F $
"
A
"!B
6 #
!
=
!
!
A B
@ $
2* A
B
3-
A!B
33
!
8A
3, $
!A7
!B
3; $
"
A !B
3< $
2* A
B
0
v . USA 14, 202
34 $
!! "
na ry
in Julia n Janua
3F $
!
!"
A
B
cited chived oB
r
82 a
36 $
!
!"
A
3 6 0
3= $
!
!
"
18-
No.
A
"" !B
3@
!
!
AB
,- $
!
!"
A B
,3
!
!A
B
,, $
!
!
"
A " !B
,; $
!
!
"
A!B
,< $
2* 8AS
"B
,4 $
!
!
"
A
!B
,F #"
! !
"
A
!B
,6 $
8A$ !B
!
!
,= $
!
!
"
A
!B
,@ $
"
A !B !
;- #
!
!
"
A
!B
;3 $
A
B
A
7
!B
;, $
!
!
"
A
!B
;; $
!
!"
AB
;< #"
!
;4 $ 2 A B
(72 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 8 of 23
;4 $
2* 8A
B
;F
A!B
;6 $
!
!
"
A
"
B
;@
A
B !
<- $
! !
"
A
7
!B
<3 $
A
!B
<, 5 "
A(+
B
<; $
A
""!B
<< $ *
" $ 2* !
"
PA+
"
SBOQ!
<4 $&
$%$2
"
!
(
@
<F
A6<!B
"
A
!B $%
A
!B
"
A6;B
<6 5 "
A#B
'
0
v. USA 14, 202
na ry
in Julia n Janua
cited chived o
$(
#
:
P(#:Q
" (
$
! (#:
"
!!
r
82 a
"
!
" !
7
360
18-
No.
"" $
#
(
"
!
$#
"'7
(
##
(
:
$#
"*
$#
"$
%""
")"
(#:! $#
"%
(
2: 0
"/#!
$#
"
.
(73 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 9 of 23
!"###
%% $%% % ( +
#/+%( %
( %$ ( +
%(%( *%%
&%$ $
%$
.&
& % %& (%
&%
3( #
+
2##; %&
in n
cited chived o
+
%& %%6 #8
; + &
ar
% %%
8-36082
( $ 1
No. .
#/&
%( $
+%% +%
; +% &
% %$+ (%
% % #
; + 8. ( + %%$ &#
* %
&% + +%%$
++
%( +
&& (?
% %( $
% (%$
(75 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 11 of 23
+$ ++ + .
8. ( $# ++
$
& %& &
+&
%" $ ++%(
%&
+
&
++ %% (%
%&(
%
+& +
%&
+ %
+
+% % %& *
(
$$ %
: &%
&&
#? * & &
+
%$
++
% : &% #/% ++ %%
?
?
%
+
+#
% &( %$+%
. U A
4, 2020
( % $
0 #>- %$& ;$
S
v 1 +
Ju liana January
+ % (#
n
ted i ived on
(% &( ci + ?
; @
rch
% $( % #
82 a
. 18 -360
No
-
& 6 &
3( * $
; %$
++
#
%#/
%
6 @6
+
: &% )& &( %
6
+ &( 9
% +
#1 " % ( +$ (%( (%
+
+ #-
+% + $ $ ( $6 $
%&+ % $ & %$$
&
$ % $
%$# ($ $
'%$
& /D: & # 0 %( 6$ %$
$
& $$+ % &
+#
2 %+# $
6%
%
&
$ * + +
&
& &
&+
8 2 ar
+ ( % #6%%
6 0
o. 18-3
++ .+ & + #8
N
6 & %$
%%%
6
& +
$
+%%$ #-
$ )
%$
+%
+ $
)
$
%($ & $ $
#-
+ "% ( #-
%
$ ( &&% + @(&+%$+$
& ,
%%+%$ %
+;
+#- / ) & %$ %% (
%$
#B 6 %% + 6
+%%+$ 0 %% + + +%
6 (%
+$#
%% % %
+ # ' % ( ++
6
+ %%$% # +
3 % %%
(77 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 13 of 23
%%$& % &$&
<
1% % + ( % %% %%$ %
&
+ % $ +
#1
&
+%$
(&
+
% &%
(
&$ ;&
+% *
.+ -
#
$%%& &(
+%$#0
%&"
. +
%$$
. % &%( +
. U A
4, 2 020
+ $#8( 8. ( : &%( $+
S
v 1
J u liana January
&& %&%$" %( $
in n
cited chived o
%
$& $
"#-; $
$
% &%( .+
(78 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 14 of 23
+ .%$ % $ +( %%
( # +%+( ++ + %% ( #
-$ " +( & %% 3+
3 %3( 6 3( $
+%++%
% %%
;$
& >$ . $ %%+ $$ %
++
+ %% . ( + #- %%
( ; #
+% 5 $+
+% $
;$+ & %
++ %&
# $
&
+ +% +& 6 $ ;$%$ *%$
+%%&@ $
( %%+ %$
%& ( $ + #1
%$ & % %( #
;$ %
$%@ %%$ + &
&
%
;( %
@ %%
+ ( % %$%% +%
%$
. U A
4 , 2020
& #1 " ( 6 $9 (
&
S
v 1
J u liana January
)F #- (& 6 ++ @
d in n
cite chived o
%% 3( $#-%%(%F 6 (
8 2 ar
(% #/
++ $ %
( $+
-3 60
3( &( *%
%
*&#B %% +@
N o. 18
@% %
& # % $& ( &
+
#- %
%
%%
%
(
++ & $#/(% ( %%
;& ( #-
(%
(79 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 15 of 23
%
#8.+ ( %%
$
(% %%" #
( $++% %$&
&
%& (%;
& % (%
++ + %$
% #1 - = %&"%
%"
+
$ $+$
% #, %$ +$
= %& %% %%%$ +% %#8( %
( ++
#-
. U A
4, 2020
%% %" %$ ;$
% ;+#>-%&
S
v 1
J u liana January
6 $ + +% " $ +
in n
cited chived o
% %" %$
% * >9% %" %$
$
8 2 ar
;$
% # $ *
(%
%&
6 0
o . 18-3
&
(%#-
;$( + %%
N
+ #5( + + .
$$
*%
%$+%$$ +% ;++% #-
( ( %$% +
. #/%%+ ++ ( $ %$
&
" +$@ . (
( $
%$
%
+
6 $% +
(& &
%
; $
>B++
%%
+ %( #-%% +% ( & %%%
6 $
(80 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 16 of 23
, &&&+
& - ;
( ;
+
) #6
% + ( %& .+ %%
+( %( %% +@
+ +(
0 * @
*%
)( %% +& # %% 6 &
*%$ % +% %
6 3( %
" +% @ *%$ 6 *# %& 6
& 3( ++%%$
+ +%
%$ + %$ 6 @ * %$
6 %% + ++ +
(%$+% *
)& $
+ 0 % ++ F #-
+ $ %% ( $
( %
% + %% &( $ + +% %& ++ 6$
$ # : &%
#0+ & 6
%%+% #/
+ +% .+
*%%$
(% #, % &#
+ $$ " #$+
++(
++ # : &%
6 &&
+ +%
%& %% +%& % % $# ++ $
=#
-%% # +$F %%$ #-+& &)
%" %$ ( $ $# % & $
#
;
++ # ++%
"
%$# 3( 7+$ A
020
v . US 4 , 2
1
++% ++ ++ @ %
Juliana January
in
( +
.+% ## $"
(
cited hived on
#
&
+ +% %& ++&
arc
6 0 82
+ ( #' # %% ( # )$
'%# = +%+$
o . 18-3
N
H"
3 + )#6
)%
% " $ )$ %%++ #/%"$
;
%$;
% ; +%%$
++$ %& .
+$$ (
%#
(
$%-
+ $&$
% &%$
(
)#
#) $
(%$
+ %
.
) %%
' % .+
%% +
+% ++%$
#-%%-
%% +
#- ++ %
#
#=#0#: 5#:
#
#'&
&= +
& ,
& %)# +
#0 $ %%" " #
%% + #-"
&
( $
% ++%%" %%
# + (
($++# 6 6
4&& #/ +
6#)%
(82 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 18 of 23
$
=#0#:
#5
# #-
)&
%++ %$&( $+(
;
(
) $ #&
"
%&
#/
, $(% # +$ #,-( %%
++ %% + #6 ++
%
+ $ % ( %%% %+%$
; +
+ +# %
#/7%%
%%
0%% %% %%
( 8+
#-$ %%
+ 3( " +%( 7 &$ %% $
" +% #
2+
/
( $ %
2#6#( +
+
" #( %%
( $ ( %$+( #8&%
)+$
%%+ +$ ++%
+%
#/ & %$% # $)+$
%%
%" )+$
)$
%%#)%#
(83 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 19 of 23
)&
%%$; #
%
)$ % #/( $ ;$
/ %$
F %
(
)#
)$%& #-++
( (%
& & : &%
++ #/% -;(
#/#6
#0 $3 %# %1#
%
%$
) %6#3 & " $% &
3 %
) . +'#)&# ++
%%
&( &(
) #/%%
& +% )( #
1
3 &6 & ) "
-# %
% % +% $
+ &
$ (
6(# -
( ( %%
6+ &#-(%
(84 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 20 of 23
+%%
&( %( & $8%# +%$
.+% $++& & 3 &
% 6+ #
6 + %%(( .+
%
$ @ . %$ )& %%&
#1 ( $
++
4&
.$ #
1
# #
% % %$ $
% %
@
#
8.J5:)<
'+ K@
7&%$ (
#)+
&%
+ %% ##>##'##NJ6
. U S A
4 , 2020
% K#= 6: ( C5 ##8% <JK L
v 1
Ju liana January
-"
++
.
%
(
%
8. +%$
&7%
#) %$ &
% $&
% $
.
% " (
% %
J % K#-+% ( % (
#' &. % L N % % ( %$
+ %$#
#/+ % ( %$ + %$ L %$#N
. U SA
4, 2020
v
#/+
% L %$N ( %$ + %$#
1
J u liana January
in n
cited chived o
#/+
% ( %$ + %$<L ( $
2
$ A+ EG#N
8 ar
60
o . 18-3
N
# ( + +L;N+ %$
+ %$#
%$N % #
(86 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 22 of 23
#
8. <LP $( + %$%% +
%&#N
B#' &
( % + +%
L+( &N
% #
0
v. USA 14, 202
#+& &%%$ <L % %%& ( $N
na ry
Julia anua
% $( & ( %$ + %$ ( #
in nJ
cited chived o
# % ( %$ + %$
L N
2 ar
6 08
% #
o. 18-3
N
C# % %%$+
LN % ( %$ + %$#
># ( $ L( &$NL;$N%
+ %$#
>#' &
% + + + %$#
(87 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-2, Page 23 of 23
# ( L+&N% +%$ + #
#: %
+% "+ % L#!"#N
# .
8. & +&+
% JL! %%
( %
)( PNIK +#
. U S A
4 , 2020
v
J u ana anuary 1 % %%$
9# * % li
in nJ
$# 8( (
& +%$&) #C#
cited chived o
8 2 ar
6 0
B#
LN $%
L ( N
o . 18-3
L &N $%
N L>#N
#: %
+ "+ L'%N &++ #
+<
#( #&(
$ %
+$&Q' 2( $' #/%%& ( #
%
2#6#&( $
%/( = /
& 0'=)+ +
2( $
4&' &
#
(88 of 91)
Case: 18-36082, 01/17/2020, ID: 11565804, DktEntry: 153-3, Page 1 of 4
Judgment
• This Court has filed and entered the attached judgment in your case.
Fed. R. App. P. 36. Please note the filed date on the attached
decision because all of the dates described below run from that date,
not from the date you receive this notice.
Petition for Panel Rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 40; 9th Cir. R. 40-1)
Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to -3)
(4) Form & Number of Copies (9th Cir. R. 40-1; Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2))
• The petition shall not exceed 15 pages unless it complies with the
alternative length limitations of 4,200 words or 390 lines of text.
• The petition must be accompanied by a copy of the panel’s decision being
challenged.
• An answer, when ordered by the Court, shall comply with the same length
limitations as the petition.
• If a pro se litigant elects to file a form brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-1, a
petition for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc need not comply with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.
Attorneys Fees
• Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1 describes the content and due dates for attorneys fees
applications.
• All relevant forms are available on our website at www.ca9.uscourts.gov under Forms
or by telephoning (415) 355-7806.
Case Name
The Clerk is requested to award costs to (party name(s)):
I swear under penalty of perjury that the copies for which costs are requested were
actually and necessarily produced, and that the requested costs were actually
expended.
Signature Date
(use “s/[typed name]” to sign electronically-filed documents)
REQUESTED
COST TAXABLE
(each column must be completed)
No. of Pages per TOTAL
DOCUMENTS / FEE PAID Cost per Page
Copies Copy COST
Excerpts of Record* $ $
Supplemental Brief(s) $ $
Petition for Review Docket Fee / Petition for Writ of Mandamus Docket Fee $
TOTAL: $
*Example: Calculate 4 copies of 3 volumes of excerpts of record that total 500 pages [Vol. 1 (10 pgs.) +
Vol. 2 (250 pgs.) + Vol. 3 (240 pgs.)] as:
No. of Copies: 4; Pages per Copy: 500; Cost per Page: $.10 (or actual cost IF less than $.10);
TOTAL: 4 x 500 x $.10 = $200.
Feedback or questions about this form? Email us at forms@ca9.uscourts.gov