UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Allan DREYER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 25, 2015.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Justin Arnold, Assistant U.S., Marci Lynette Ellsworth, Assistant U.S., J. Tate London, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Erik B. Levin, Law Office of Erik Levin, Berkeley, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
The more troubling and painful question is what the role of our government should be if and when terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Queda capture an American citizen and hold him hostage, and whether the government may, or should, impose any limitation on the rights of the citizen‘s family or friends to communicate with that group or pay a ransom. It is significant that the government has told this court that currently there are no policies preventing private individuals from making efforts to secure the release of relatives who are held captive abroad. More important however from the standpoint of the legal rules that govern us, the parties bringing the action—relatives of contractors’ employees “brutally killed,” as Judge Fisher puts it, in the Middle East—seek no damages resulting from that policy but simply seek to have the policy declared unlawful. They ask that the government be enjoined from implementing the policy in the future. Again, even assuming that contrary to what the government tells us, such a policy exists, we cannot under well established legal rules render a decision that will be of no immediate benefit to the individuals bringing the lawsuit. Because the plaintiffs have no relatives currently in the Middle East, or currently in greater danger from terrorist groups than any of the rest of us, we again face only a hypothetical question—the kind that courts do not answer.1
For theses reasons, we do not consider the wisdom, let alone the existence or the legality, of any government policy regarding how to deal with any terrorist groups that may in the future hold American citizens captive. That is a question that, for now at least, is best left to the American people.2
Adam RICHARDS; Second Amendment Foundation; Calguns Foundation, Inc.; Brett Stewart, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ed PRIETO; County of Yolo, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-16255.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 26, 2015.
Alan Gura, Gura & Possessky, PLLC, Alexandria, VA, Donald Kilmer, Jr., The Law Offices of Donald Kilmer, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Bruce A. Kilday, Serena M. Warner, Esquire, John A. Whitesides, Esquire, Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
THOMAS, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to
Troas V. BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David NORMAN; A. Castro; Tracy Jackson; A. Fouch; J. Prudhomme; D. Fulks; Jason Barba; K. Curtiss; Michael Pallares; K. Lennon; Martin Gamboa; Angel Duran; Dimas Manuel Torres Barraza; Manuel Torres, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-15234.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 9, 2015. Filed March 31, 2015.
ORDER
THOMAS, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to