Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Rodriguez Irias, a Honduran national, entered the United States without valid entry documentation in January 2019. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and a hearing was scheduled for February 2023 with notices sent to her last address on record. Rodriguez Irias did not appear at the hearing, and the immigration judge ordered her removal in absentia. In October 2023, her attorney filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, claiming ineffective assistance for failing to file an appearance and not informing Rodriguez Irias of the hearing date. The attorney submitted a letter he claimed to have sent to the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board, but provided no proof of receipt.The Immigration Judge denied the motion to reopen, finding that Rodriguez Irias had not demonstrated lack of notice and that her ineffective assistance claim was both untimely and unsupported by exceptional circumstances. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, holding that the ineffective assistance claim was procedurally deficient under Matter of Lozada because there was no evidence that the disciplinary board had received the attorney’s self-report. The BIA also determined Rodriguez Irias had constructive notice of her hearing and declined to reopen the case sua sponte, noting the relief sought could not be granted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion. The court held that Rodriguez Irias had not satisfied the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, specifically the requirement to provide proof that her counsel’s complaint was submitted to the appropriate disciplinary authorities. The court also determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen the case sua sponte. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Irias v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an inmate in an Arkansas correctional facility, was placed in isolation for approximately six weeks during the summer, in a cell lacking air conditioning. He claimed that, as a dialysis patient subject to fluid restrictions, exposure to excessive heat caused him significant discomfort and posed a risk to his health. Throughout his confinement, he submitted several grievances to prison officials, asserting that his medical condition required air-conditioned housing. Although medical staff and other personnel were consulted, no documented medical restriction indicated that air conditioning was medically necessary for him, and prison officials relied on a physician’s opinion that his situation did not constitute an emergency.After discovery, the plaintiff brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three prison officials, alleging cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding them entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court assumed, for purposes of analysis, that the plaintiff’s medical condition presented an objectively serious risk. However, the court concluded that the record lacked evidence of deliberate indifference by the defendants: they consulted medical professionals, responded to grievances, implemented measures to mitigate heat, and treated the plaintiff’s medical complaints. Because the defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, they were entitled to qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the prison officials were not deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical needs and did not subject him to cruel and unusual punishment. View "Hamilton v. Earl" on Justia Law

ARcare, Inc., a nonprofit community health center receiving federal funding, suffered a data breach in early 2022 when an unauthorized third party accessed confidential patient information, including names, social security numbers, and medical treatment details. After ARcare notified affected individuals, several patients filed lawsuits alleging that ARcare failed to adequately safeguard their information as required under federal law. Plaintiffs reported fraudulent invoices and that their information was found for sale on the dark web.The actions were removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, where six class actions were consolidated. ARcare sought to invoke absolute immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) of the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA), which provides immunity for damages resulting from the performance of “medical, surgical, dental, or related functions.” ARcare moved to substitute the United States as defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing the data breach arose from a “related function.” The district court denied the motion, finding that protecting patient information from cyberattacks was not sufficiently linked to the provision of health care to qualify as a “related function” under the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the statutory immunity issue de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of immunity, holding that the FSHCAA’s language does not extend statutory immunity to claims arising from a health center’s data security practices. The court reasoned that “related functions” must be activities closely connected to the provision of health care, and data security is not such a function. Therefore, ARcare is not entitled to substitute the United States as defendant, and the denial of statutory immunity was affirmed. View "Hale v. ARcare, Inc" on Justia Law

Donald Stephens was employed as an operator for United States Environmental Services, LLC, a position that required him to maintain a valid commercial driver's license (CDL). During a Saturday shift, Stephens refused to perform tasks typically assigned to technicians and raised several safety concerns, including inadequate equipment and staff. He also disclosed a heart condition to his supervisor. As a result, he was required to undergo a medical examination, which led to a 45-day medical hold on his CDL. Although he was medically cleared to perform non-driving work, USES denied his request for reassignment and recommended he seek short-term disability. After the hold was lifted and he was cleared to drive, Stephens resigned, claiming discomfort with his treatment by USES. Stephens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, as well as violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court dismissed the FLSA claim and granted summary judgment to USES on the remaining claims. The court held that Stephens did not have a disability as defined by the ADA because his heart condition did not substantially limit a major life activity, and that USES did not regard him as disabled. The court also found that Stephens had not engaged in protected activity necessary to support a retaliation claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Stephens did not demonstrate a substantial limitation of a major life activity and did not establish that he engaged in protected activity under the ADA. The Eighth Circuit also declined to consider an argument Stephens raised for the first time on appeal. View "Stephens v. U.S. Environmental Services LLC" on Justia Law

Law enforcement in South Dakota, while investigating a drug trafficking operation, asked an officer to stop a car leaving a surveilled apartment building. The officer conducted a traffic stop of the driver, Alex Johnson, for excessive window tint. Johnson admitted his license was suspended. The officer received confirmation of the suspension within six minutes. Although he had all the information necessary to issue a ticket for driving without a license and a warning for the window tint, the officer delayed finalizing and delivering the paperwork. Instead, he waited for a K9 unit to arrive and conversed about unrelated matters. After the K9 alerted to the car, a search revealed drugs and paraphernalia. Police later searched Johnson’s apartment and found additional drugs. The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Johnson’s motion to suppress the evidence from both the car and his apartment. The district court determined that the officer would have completed the traffic stop paperwork by about twenty minutes if he had acted diligently. However, it held that the delay was permissible under the community caretaking exception, as Johnson could not legally drive the car away due to his suspended license. The court further found that the apartment evidence was admissible because it was not the fruit of an unlawful search. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the officer unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop beyond the time necessary to address the traffic violations, as there was no active effort or plan to remove the car for safety reasons. The community caretaking function did not justify the extended detention. Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that all evidence from the car and the subsequent apartment search should have been suppressed. The court reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, vacated Johnson’s conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Christopher Carroll and Whiskey Dix Big Truck Repair, LLC (“WDBTR”) were charged with multiple offenses after Carroll, with an associate, falsely represented the use of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds, which were instead used for personal expenses and to start WDBTR. Additional charges included tampering with Clean Air Act (CAA) monitoring devices on company trucks and witness tampering related to efforts to impede the investigation. Carroll’s prior parole status was relevant to the government’s allegation that he concealed this on the PPP application by omitting his name and submitting the application in his wife’s name.A United States Magistrate Judge recommended denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that the grand jury had been improperly instructed to use a probable cause standard and that a higher standard should apply. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri adopted this recommendation, referencing Supreme Court precedent affirming probable cause as the standard for grand jury indictments. The district court also denied Carroll’s motion to exclude evidence of his prior conviction and parole status, determining it was relevant to Carroll’s intent to defraud and not unduly prejudicial. After trial, Carroll was convicted on multiple fraud, CAA, and witness tampering counts, and WDBTR was convicted on CAA charges.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that the probable cause standard governs grand jury indictments, consistent with longstanding Supreme Court precedent. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Carroll’s parole status, as it was probative of intent and any error would have been harmless given the strength of the government’s case. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "United States v. Carroll" on Justia Law

Two individuals, a political commentator and a state legislator, brought suit against Minnesota officials to challenge a state statute that criminalizes the dissemination of “deep fake” content intended to influence elections. The law applies to realistic depictions that could mislead a reasonable person into believing a public figure engaged in speech or conduct they did not. The commentator created an AI-generated video of Vice President Harris, which he labeled as parody with a clear disclaimer. The legislator shared the same video without any disclaimer. Both plaintiffs argued that the statute infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.After the complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, the district court found that the commentator lacked standing because the only videos he posted were labeled as parody and thus not covered by the statute. The court concluded that the legislator did have standing, since she shared content that could plausibly be seen as a deep fake under the law. However, the court denied her motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding she had unreasonably delayed in seeking relief—waiting over sixteen months after the statute’s enactment without sufficient explanation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the commentator did not demonstrate a credible threat of prosecution or show any evidence of injury, including from third parties. The court also determined that the legislator’s delay in seeking a preliminary injunction undermined her claim of irreparable harm, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying extraordinary relief. The Eighth Circuit left open the possibility of further proceedings on the merits, including a permanent injunction, but affirmed the denial of preliminary relief. View "Kohls v. Ellison" on Justia Law

The case centers on a defendant who was indicted on two counts: unlawful possession of a firearm by a drug user and making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm. The indictment alleged that, on specific dates in 2022, the defendant, as an unlawful user of marijuana and cocaine, possessed multiple firearms and falsely represented on a federal form that he was not an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance. The evidence included the defendant’s admissions of regular drug use, his possession of firearms during the same period, and his acknowledgment that he was not prescribed any controlled substances. Additional evidence established that, at the time of a firearm purchase, he smelled of marijuana, and a subsequent search uncovered both a loaded pistol and marijuana in his vehicle. Drug tests confirmed recent use of marijuana and cocaine.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, rejected his claims that the statutes were unconstitutionally vague, and found him guilty on both counts in a bench trial based on stipulated facts. The court concluded that the statutory terms were not vague as applied to the defendant, given his admissions and the explicit warning on the federal form. The court also held that the statute prohibiting firearm possession by drug users was consistent with historical tradition and deferred ruling on the as-applied Second Amendment challenge until trial evidence was complete. The defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a drug user under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and remanded for the district court to reassess the defendant’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge in light of intervening circuit precedent. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision on all other issues, including the conviction for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). View "United States v. Ledvina" on Justia Law

A nonmember landowner sought to install a high-capacity surface water pump on his fee land within the reservation of the White Earth Nation in Minnesota. He obtained a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources but did not apply for a tribal permit as required by an ordinance enacted by the reservation’s governing body. The tribal Division of Natural Resources sued him in Tribal Court, alleging the pump would negatively affect reservation resources, and obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting installation. The Tribal Court of Appeals remanded the case for a hearing to determine the Tribal Court’s jurisdiction.The landowner then sued the Tribal Court judge and the director of the Division of Natural Resources in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, seeking a declaration that the Tribal Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the tribal sovereignty exception established in Montana v. United States, and moved for a preliminary injunction to halt tribal litigation. The district court denied the injunction and stayed the federal case, requiring exhaustion of tribal remedies—meaning the landowner must litigate jurisdictional issues to completion in the Tribal Court and, if necessary, in the Tribal Court of Appeals. The district court found that tribal jurisdiction was not plainly lacking or frivolous under established law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of the tribal exhaustion doctrine de novo. It held that exhaustion was appropriate because the assertion of tribal jurisdiction was not obviously invalid or frivolous, and the law regarding the tribal sovereignty exception was unsettled in these circumstances. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings, requiring completion of tribal adjudication before federal intervention. View "Vipond v. DeGroat" on Justia Law

Benjamin Higgerson was originally sentenced to 78 months in prison and ten years of supervised release after pleading guilty to possession of child pornography. Following his release, he repeatedly violated the terms of his supervised release, including failing to seek approved employment, missing restitution payments, and skipping sex offender treatment sessions. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa revoked his supervised release twice, each time imposing nine months of imprisonment and a new nine-year term of supervised release. Upon beginning his third term, Higgerson failed to report to a designated homeless shelter and did not check in with his probation officer, resulting in further Grade C violations.After these violations, the district court conducted a third revocation hearing. The government requested a sentence above the guideline range due to Higgerson’s repeated noncompliance. Higgerson’s counsel argued for a lower sentence, citing his lack of housing. The district court imposed an 18-month sentence of imprisonment and a subsequent nine-year term of supervised release, with conditions including a residential reentry center placement. Higgerson did not object to the factors considered at sentencing.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Higgerson argued that the district court improperly considered “promoting respect for the law,” a factor excluded from revocation sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The Eighth Circuit applied plain error review, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Esteras v. United States, which prohibits consideration of “respect for the law” in revocation sentences. The Eighth Circuit found no clear or obvious reliance on the excluded factor and concluded that the district court’s reasoning focused on deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Higgerson" on Justia Law