The Ninth Circuit has published revisions to its civil and criminal
Model Jury Instructions.
The site says that its "website is currently undergoing migration to a new platform" and that users will be "redirected to the original version."
As I have noted here before, a "not secure" warning screen about "attackers" comes up when clicking on the links to both sets of instructions. I get that warning when using the Microsoft Edge browser, but not with Google Chrome. My best guess is that it is a false alarm, but it has been that way for several months now. Hopefully they will fix this when they complete the migration.
Anyway, the civil changes are as follows:
The Comment to Instruction 9.11 (Particular Rights—First Amendment—“Citizen” Plaintiff) now notes that "Courts may also consider a student’s age to evaluate whether a school’s actions were reasonably designed to protect the safety and well-being of its students. B.B. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 169 F.4th 953, 962-64 (9th Cir. 2026) (per curiam) (observing that “[c]ertain speech may be merely negative or controversial to high schoolers, but may constitute derogatory and injurious remarks against elementary students given their greater vulnerability”).
The Comment to Instruction 9.17 (Particular Rights—Fourth Amendment—Unreasonable Search—Exception to Warrant Requirement—Exigent Circumstances), now notes that Jones v. City of N. Las Vegas, 168 F.4th 1131, 1134 (9th Cir. 2026), amended on denial of reh’g en banc 150 F.4th 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2025) (holding that “a pursuit is at best lukewarm, and certainly no longer hot pursuit, when officers lose a suspect’s trail in a residential neighborhood for eighteen minutes”), has been amended on remand.
The Comments to Instructions 9.36 (Particular Rights—Fourteenth Amendment—Due Process—
Interference with Parent/Child Relationship), and 9.41 (Qualified Immunity) delete their citations to Scott v. Smith, 109 F.4th 1215(9th Cir. 2024).
The Comment to Instruction 17.21 (Secondary Liability—Contributory Infringement—Elements and Burden of Proof) now discusses Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 146 S. Ct. 959 (2026).
The criminal changes are as follows:
Two paragraphs were added at the end of the kidnapping instructions at 17.1 to 17.6:
To “kidnap” a person means to unlawfully hold, keep, detain, or confine the person
against their will and without their consent. Involuntariness or coercion in connection with the
victim’s detention is an essential part of the offense.
[To “inveigle” a person means to lure, entice or lead the person astray by false representations, promises, or other deceitful means.]
The Comment to Instruction 14.15 (Firearms—Unlawful Possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g))) now cites United States v. Martinez, 169 F.4th 1147, 1152-58 (9th Cir. 2026) (upholding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) and rejecting both a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge to the law under the Second Amendment).
The Comment to Instruction 15.9 (Fraud in Connection with Identification Documents—Aggravated Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A)) now cites United States v. Motley, 168 F.4th 588, 598 (9th Cir. 2026) (“[T]he fraudulent or deceitful aspect of the identity use must be distinct from—and not duplicative of—the fraud in the underlying healthcare crime. The use of identifiers, in other words, must stand on its own as fraudulent or deceitful ....”).
The Comment to Instruction 20.29 (Using or Attempting to Use the Mail or a Means of Interstate Commerce to Persuade or Coerce a Minor to Engage in Prostitution or Sexual Activity (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b))) now notes that § 2422(b) requires proof that the defendant’s purpose was to merely “confirm or exploit” the minor’s will, citing United States v. Williams, 172 F.4th 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2026).