JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. In 2020, during protests led in part by the organization known as Black Lives Matter (BLM), plaintiff Eric Noble made the mistake of sharing an insensitive meme on his personal Facebook page. Only his Facebook friends, who numbered less than 100, could see his posting. He took down the meme less than 24 hours after it went up and after his mother had advised that he do so. But it was too late. Some of Noble’s Facebook friends who worked with him at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library (“the Library”) saw the post. They complained to the Library. After an investigation, Noble’s bosses did not think his quick removal of the meme was good enough that he should be forgiven. Instead, the Library terminated his employment as a security guard.

There is no evidence that anyone outside the Library ever saw Noble’s short-lived meme, and there is no proof in the record that he ever did anything at his job, either before or after the unfortunate post, to cause trouble with his co-workers or Library patrons. Noble alleges that the Library’s termination of his employment violated his First Amendment rights. We agree. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants and remand with instructions for summary judgment to be entered in favor of Noble on his First Amendment retaliation claim.

COLE, Circuit Judge. Applicant Marta Lidia Tista-Ruiz De Ajualip is a native citizen of Guatemala who applied for asylum and withholding of removal for herself and on behalf of her three children and grandson,¹ all of whom entered the United States on March 5, 2016.² Marta’s family left Guatemala because they were afraid that Marta’s son-in-law, Marvin, would act on his threats to kill them.

After initiating removal proceedings and holding an administrative hearing in 2016, an immigration judge (IJ) found that Marta and her family were subjected to persecution as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), but the IJ denied Marta’s asylum and withholding claims for other reasons. In making her asylum determination, the IJ relied on previously applicable immigration precedent to declare that victims of domestic violence are not protected by the asylum laws of the United States. And when analyzing Marta’s withholding claim, the IJ applied the wrong legal standard and premised her denial on a separate, inapplicable immigration statute.

In March 2023, the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) issued an opinion affirming both points. The Board issued a separate opinion on the asylum claim that acknowledged a significant change in precedent since the IJ’s decision, but the Board affirmed instead of remanding for further review. The Board summarily affirmed the denial of Marta’s withholding claim. Because the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal is inconsistent with this court’s precedent and other immigration authority, we grant Marta’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en banc of this case. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b) provides as follows:

A decision to grant rehearing en banc vacates the previous opinion and judgment of the court, stays the mandate, and restores the case on the docket as a pending appeal.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this court are vacated, the mandate is stayed, and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Dan Carman, Coin Center, Raymond Walsh, and Quiet Industries Corp. (“plaintiffs”) regularly transact in cryptocurrency for both personal and business matters. They enjoy the privacy and anonymity that cryptocurrency transactions provide. So when Congress passed amendments to 26 U.S.C. § 6050I, a law that now requires reporting of certain cryptocurrency transactions to the federal government, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the United States and the agencies in charge of implementing and enforcing § 6050I.¹ The district court found that it was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to the amended § 6050I, because plaintiffs’ claims are either not ripe for adjudication or because the plaintiffs lack standing. Although the district court was correct that one of plaintiffs’ claims is not ripe, several of plaintiffs’ claims are justiciable today. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the district court’s judgment, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.