Lucy Haeran Koh

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit circuit Appointed by Joseph R. Biden (Democratic) 18 signed orders read

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Barai
20-10318 · 2022-12-20
Appeal (appellants (defendants Sharmistha Barai and Satish Kartan, convicted of forced labor)) Denied

“We hold that 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a) lists alternative factual means, about which the jurors did not need to agree unanimously so long as they unanimously agreed that Barai and Kartan knowingly obtained forced labor by prohibited means. ... AFFIRMED.”

Koonwaiyou v. Blinken
22-35233 · 2023-06-07
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Ilai Kanutu Koonwaiyou, seeking non-citizen U.S. national status)) Granted

“The judgment of the district court is reversed, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED.”

Reyes-Corado v. Garland
18-70225 · 2023-08-11
Petition for review (petitioner (Francisco Reyes-Corado, a Guatemalan native seeking to reopen removal proceedings)) Granted

“We grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
23-15087 · 2024-01-11
Appeal (appellant (the City and County of San Francisco)) Denied

“the panel affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs on their Eighth Amendment claim as to the City's new arguments regarding the geographic and time limitations of some of the enjoined ordinances”

Sidibe v. Sutter Health
22-15634 · 2024-06-04
Appeal (appellants (a certified class of health-plan premium payers, plaintiffs Djeneba Sidibe et al.)) Granted

“the panel reversed the district court's judgment in favor of Sutter Health, the operator of a healthcare system, on Plaintiffs' claims alleging that Sutter has abused its market power in the region to charge supracompetitive rates”

United States v. Hughes
23-15712 · 2024-08-21
Appeal (appellant (defendant Timberly Hughes, challenging civil FBAR penalties)) Denied

“We agree with the district court and every other Court of Appeals to consider this question that an objective recklessness standard is appropriate, and we affirm.”

Salas v. United States
22-16936 · 2024-08-27
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Andrew Sablan Salas, a CNMI resident)) Denied

“We conclude that 7 U.S.C. § 2156 and its 2018 Amendment apply to the CNMI. Accordingly, we affirm.”

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
23-3445 · 2025-03-10
Petition for writ of mandamus (petitioners (Uber Technologies, Inc. and affiliates)) Denied

“For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition.”

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
25-2808 · 2025-05-14
Motion for stay pending appeal (movant (the Government -- HHS, ORR, and the Department of the Interior)) Denied

“We conclude the Government has shown neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor irreparable injury absent a stay and accordingly deny the Government's motion.”

In re Davis (Davis v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California)
24-3090 · 2025-06-02
Petition for writ of mandamus (petitioners (crime victims Joshua Davis and N.A., seeking to correct restitution orders)) Granted

“The panel granted two petitions for writs of mandamus brought under the CVRA, § 3771(d)(3), and remanded for further consideration in the district court as to whether Petitioners met the requirements to reopen restitution proceedings set forth in the MVRA, § 3664(d)(5).”

Waterkeeper Alliance v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
23-636 · 2025-06-18
Petition for review (petitioners (Waterkeeper Alliance and other environmental organizations)) Granted in part

“For the reasons set forth below, we agree in part and remand to EPA for further proceedings.”

Wyatt B. v. Kotek
24-4689 · 2025-08-12
Appeal (appellants (plaintiff foster children)) Granted

“We hold that they are afforded substantive due process protections, and therefore, we reverse.”

Put Judge Koh's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Koh actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Koh's own signed orders and cites them.