Notable rulings
Elton Simpson case
On March 14, 2011, Murguia acquitted Elton Simpson of making a false statement to federal agents involving terrorism, and released him on probation with a minor fine for lesser charges. [8] Simpson had allegedly lied to FBI agents about his intent to travel to Somalia to join up with terrorist groups to kill non-Muslims, but Murguia declined to enhance his sentence based on the government's evidence. Four years later, Simpson was one of two terrorists who attacked a free speech event in Texas, injuring an unarmed security guard and being killed in the process. Evidence indicated that after Murguia released him, Simpson became involved with the terrorist organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, who immediately after the attack claimed Simpson was a "soldier for the caliphate". [9]
Melendres v. Arpaio
Murguia recused herself from the federal racial profiling case against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in February 2009. Arpaio's attorneys alleged Murguia had, "...a natural, personal bias in favor of the Plaintiffs," based upon her sister's leadership of National Council of La Raza, which has been highly critical of Arpaio. [10]
The Melendres case was reassigned. In May 2013, Judge G. Murray Snow ruled that Arpaio had indeed engaged in racial profiling. In 2014, Snow found Arpaio had violated court orders addressing cessation of racial profiling, and began proceedings to hold Arpaio in contempt of court. Arpaio has also accused Snow of bias, and initiated previously-secret investigations into the alleged bias. [11]
The United States of America v. Victor Manuel Raya-Vaca
In 2014, a case was brought by the United States of America against Raya-Vaca, on the grounds of illegal entry, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals deemed that the defendant was judged with bias and therefore reversed the lower court’s opinion. [12] Judge Murguia wrote in the opinion that Raya-Vaca was the victim of bias and that the government had acted without due process of his rights and therefore the legal grounds for his ejection were not a solid legal basis for his removal. [12]
Jesse James Andrews v. Ron Davis
In 2018, this en banc case held that Jesse Andrew did not receive proper constitutionally granted counsel during the first phase of the legal system. [13] Initially, Andrews was raised in a segregated and poverty-stricken area of Mobile, Alabama at a school that has since been shuttered based on their violations of the Eighth Amendment. [13] Because of this, Murguia wrote that mitigating information was not told to the court and therefore the death penalty should not be judged by those standards. [13]
Grigoryan v. Barr
In 2019, Judge Murguia and the panel of judges ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals violated the petitioners’ rights as immigrants. [14] The violation concerned the actions that the government took that disabused the plaintiffs’ rights of due process before their status was terminated. [14] The basis of this decision was supported by the fact that the Board did not provide “sufficient” information to the Plaintiffs. [14] Judge Murguia wrote that even though they were in the U.S. for fourteen years, they were not judged fairly and given the proper information and denied their relief of deportation based on a single page that didn’t hold up under scrutiny. [14]
Ashley Judd v. Harvey Weinstein
In the 2020 opinion written by Judge Murguia for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, she and her fellow judges overturned the lower court’s ruling since they deemed an incorrect application of statutes since her case was thrown out. [15] Based on statute. Cal. Civ. Code § 51.9(a)(1)(F) (1996), the panel headed by Murguia ruled that their relationship constituted by the statute and therefore Weinstein was suited to use his leverage to allegedly abuse the plaintiff. [15] This ruling and the following opinion reversed the ruling from the Supreme Court of California. This case was also instrumental to the cohesion of the Me Too movement as well. [15]
This page is based on this
Wikipedia article Text is available under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
