Case Explained: MOORE V. YEHLING

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-15 Docket: 4:25-cv-00299-JGZ The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Moore’s suit against a state judge but modified the disposition from dismissal with prejudice to dismissal without prejudice. The court held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction because no “case or controversy” exists under Article III of the Constitution; specifically, a state court judge who applies a statute in a neutral fashion is not an adverse litigant and has no stake in upholding that statute. The court rejected Moore’s reliance on *Pulliam v. Allen*, clarifying that case concerned judicial immunity rather than justiciability, and distinguished her claims from those in *Grant v. Johnson* where the plaintiff sought to enjoin future specific violations. Because the dismissal was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court ruled it should have been without prejudice to allow Moore to continue challenging the conservatorship statute in state courts. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed as modified, and costs are awarded to the appellee. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.