Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt

95 F.4th 1152
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt. Read the opinion of the Court — 72 F.4th 1043
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 19, 2024·No. 22-35271·Published

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

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

95 F.4th 1152 (Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.