Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt

Ninth Circuit

Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt

95 F.4th 1152

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2024

Docket22-35271

StatusPublished

This text of 95 F.4th 1152 (Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt, 95 F.4th 1152 (9th Cir. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PROJECT VERITAS; PROJECT VERITAS No. 22-35271 ACTION FUND, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-01435-MO Plaintiffs-Appellants, District of Oregon, Portland v. ORDER MICHAEL SCHMIDT, in his official capacity as Multnomah County District Attorney; ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity as Oregon Attorney General,

Defendants-Appellees.

MURGUIA, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a)

and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion is vacated.

Judges Forrest and H.A. Thomas did not participate in the deliberations or

vote in this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI