At the risk of being a pest, I'm going to point it out again.
Seven days ago, Judge Trott issued this opinion for the en banc court in which he wrote: "The principle problem with the government's defense is that . . . ." Which was an error obvious even to a grammar idiot such as myself. Even though it apparently escaped the attention of the entire en banc panel. So I promptly posted about it here, assuming that this would successfully enlighten the universe regarding the difference between "principle" and "principal".
Not so, apparently. Today, Judge Ikuta issued this opinion. In which, on the third page of the opinion, she writes: "This theory was supported by two principle pieces of evidence."
I ain't no genius. I don't even spell so good. But come on. If even I can know this rule, so can everyone else. (Especially Judge Ikuta, who's extremely bright.)
So there. I'm sure this post will finally do the trick. Or, more plausibly, that the Ninth Circuit can at least make it past a week before making the same basic mistake again.