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

Keshon Baxter was charged with being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm. In May 2023, police encountered Baxter in Des Moines, Iowa, and found a loaded pistol and a baggie of marijuana on him. Baxter moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute under which he was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), violated the Second Amendment as applied to him and was unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied his motion without a hearing, and Baxter entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa rejected Baxter's arguments. The court found that the government had shown adequate historical analogues to reject the Second Amendment challenge and that Baxter had not demonstrated that the statute was vague as applied to his conduct. Baxter then appealed these rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not make sufficient factual findings regarding Baxter's drug use and its overlap with his firearm possession to properly address the as-applied Second Amendment challenge. Therefore, the appellate court remanded the case to the district court for the necessary factual findings. The appellate court affirmed the district court's rejection of Baxter's vagueness challenge, noting that Baxter had not shown that the term "unlawful user" was vague as applied to his conduct. The court also affirmed the rejection of any facial Second Amendment challenge, as it was foreclosed by precedent.In conclusion, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on the vagueness and facial Second Amendment challenges, reversed the ruling on the as-applied Second Amendment challenge, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Baxter" on Justia Law

Fourteen civilly committed clients of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) filed a lawsuit challenging MSOP policies that affected their spiritual group activities, particularly those impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Before the pandemic, MSOP allowed clients to participate in spiritual groups under certain conditions. However, during the pandemic, MSOP implemented new regulations that restricted these activities. Plaintiffs argued that these restrictions violated the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were moot because the COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted, and pre-pandemic policies were reinstated. The court also declined to address new concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding MSOP's current policies, as these issues were not included in the second amended complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs' claims about the pandemic-era policies were moot since those policies were no longer in effect. The court also found that the plaintiffs' new concerns about MSOP's current policies were not properly pled in the second amended complaint and thus were not before the court. Additionally, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record with discovery documents, as the plaintiffs failed to provide a valid reason for not including these documents earlier, and their inclusion would not change the case's resolution. View "Allan v. Minnesota DHS" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted Senate File 2340, which criminalizes the presence of aliens who have illegally reentered the United States within its boundaries. The Act mandates that aliens violating it must return to the country they reentered from and prohibits judges from abating state prosecutions due to pending or possible federal determinations of the alien’s immigration status. The United States sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act, which the district court granted. Iowa appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled that the United States had standing to sue and could state a cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the United States established a likelihood of success on the merits, showing that federal immigration law preempts the Act under both conflict and field preemption. The court also found that irreparable harm would occur if the Act went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, examining factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the United States had standing and an equitable cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the Act likely conflicts with federal immigration law, as it obstructs the discretion of federal officials and creates a parallel enforcement scheme. The court also agreed that the United States demonstrated irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act was affirmed. View "United States v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law

Marcus Todd, a state employee in Minnesota, alleged that a union violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by deducting union dues from his paycheck without his consent. Todd joined the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees in 2014 and authorized dues deductions. In 2018, a new authorization card was allegedly signed electronically with Todd's name, which he claims was forged. After the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, Todd attempted to resign from the union and stop dues deductions, but the union continued until May 2021, citing an annual opt-out period.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Todd's federal claims, stating that he voluntarily agreed to the dues deductions before Janus and was contractually bound to the opt-out period. The court also found that the union did not act under color of state law regarding the alleged forgery and dismissed Todd's claims for prospective relief as moot. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Todd's state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Todd's claims failed due to the lack of state action, as the union's actions were based on private agreements, not state statutes. The court referenced Hoekman v. Education Minnesota and Burns v. School Service Employees Union Local 284, which established that private agreements for dues deductions do not constitute state action. The court also found that the alleged forgery did not establish state action, as it was a private misuse of state law. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Todd v. AFSCME" on Justia Law

The City of Hillsboro, Missouri, enacted ordinances prohibiting new private wells within city limits and requiring residences to connect to the city water system. The Antoinette Ogilvy Trust, owning a 156-acre property within Hillsboro, claimed these ordinances constituted an uncompensated regulatory taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The trustees, William Becker and Darcy Lynch, argued that the regulations made developing the property financially unfeasible due to the high costs of connecting to the city water system.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the City, rejecting the trustees' claims. The court found that the regulations did not constitute a per se taking, as they did not involve a physical invasion of the property or deprive it of all economic value. The court also determined that the regulations did not fail the Penn Central balancing test for regulatory takings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the regulations did not mandate a permanent physical invasion of the property, as the trustees were not compelled to build structures or dedicate land to the City. The court also found that the property retained substantial value, thus not constituting a taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Additionally, the court declined to consider the trustees' exaction claim, as it was not sufficiently raised in the lower court.Under the Penn Central test, the court concluded that the economic impact on the trustees was not significant enough to constitute a taking, and the regulations did not interfere with reasonable investment-backed expectations. The character of the governmental action was deemed a legitimate exercise of the City's police powers to prevent water contamination and protect the aquifer. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Becker v. City of Hillsboro" on Justia Law

In January 2020, Detective Josh Winter of the Clinton, Iowa, Police Department stopped Johnathon Lawrence Rose for having heavily-tinted windows, which violated Iowa law. During the stop, Rose's behavior made Winter nervous, prompting him to request a canine unit. The drug-detection dog alerted to the presence of drugs, leading to a search of Rose's car, where officers found drug paraphernalia and suspected drug residue. Rose was arrested, and further searches at the police department and his residence revealed more drugs, ammunition, and firearms. Rose was indicted for possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa held an evidentiary hearing and denied Rose's motion to suppress the evidence. Rose entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. The district court determined Rose was a career offender and sentenced him to 210 months of imprisonment. Rose appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed his sentence. Rose then filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court agreed, vacated his sentence, and reimposed it, allowing Rose to appeal again.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding no constitutional violations in the traffic stop, searches, or Rose's incriminating statements. However, the court reversed Rose's sentence, agreeing with the government's concession that the case must be remanded for resentencing in light of a recent decision in United States v. Daye, which impacted the classification of Rose as a career offender. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "United States v. Rose" on Justia Law

Dr. Tara Gustilo, an Asian American obstetrician-gynecologist of Filipino descent, was demoted from her position as Chair of the OBGYN Department at Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. (HHS) in April 2021. Following her demotion, she filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and subsequently sued HHS, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), as well as a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of HHS, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the race discrimination, retaliation, and First Amendment claims. The court concluded that Dr. Gustilo failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination and that there was no evidence she opposed an unlawful employment practice. Additionally, the court found no material fact dispute regarding whether the HHS Board considered her Facebook posts in its decision to demote her.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim, finding that there was a material fact dispute regarding whether the HHS Board ratified the MEC's decision and the basis for it, which included consideration of Dr. Gustilo's Facebook posts. The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the posts were protected speech and to apply the Pickering balancing test.The court declined to review the district court's summary judgment rulings on the Title VII and MHRA claims at this time, as they are now interlocutory. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Gustilo v. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc." on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Derek Mims, Elmer Mims, David Belton, and Anton Whitney for conspiracy to distribute pure methamphetamine. Whitney was also charged with possession of a firearm by a drug user, and Belton was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon and drug user. Derek, Belton, and Whitney entered conditional guilty pleas, while a jury found Elmer guilty. The defendants appealed the district court's denial of motions to suppress evidence from wiretaps, a motion to recuse, and, in Belton's case, a motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle search. Elmer also appealed the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction and the length of his sentence, while Derek and Whitney challenged their sentences.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied the motions to suppress evidence obtained from wiretaps, finding that the necessity and probable cause requirements were met. The court also denied Belton's motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle search, applying the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. The court found probable cause based on the suspicious circumstances and modifications observed on the vehicle. The district court also denied the motion to recuse, stating that a judge's authorization of wiretap warrants does not require recusal from subsequent motions to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that the wiretap affidavits met the necessity and probable cause requirements, the vehicle search was justified under the automobile exception, and the denial of the motion to recuse was not an abuse of discretion. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Elmer's conviction and upheld the sentences of Derek, Whitney, and Elmer, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's sentencing decisions. View "United States v. Mims" on Justia Law

After the death of George Floyd, large-scale protests occurred in Kansas City, Missouri. On May 30, 2020, the Kansas City Police Department requested assistance from the Missouri State Highway Patrol to manage the protests, which turned violent. Law enforcement used tear gas and other munitions to disperse the crowd. Sergeant Jeffrey Spire deployed various crowd control measures, including smoke grenades and projectiles. Around 11:47 p.m., Spire fired projectiles indiscriminately into the crowd, one of which allegedly struck Sean Stearns, causing him to lose vision in his left eye.Stearns sued Sergeant Spire under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He also brought claims under Missouri law and a Monell claim against the Board of Police Commissioners. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Spire was entitled to qualified immunity and that Stearns could not establish a Monell claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Spire was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim because Stearns failed to demonstrate a causal connection between his injury and retaliatory animus. The court also found that Stearns waived his Fourth Amendment claim by not providing a meaningful argument. Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court concluded that Spire's actions did not shock the conscience and thus did not constitute a substantive due process violation. Consequently, the Monell claim failed due to the absence of a constitutional violation. The court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice, finding no abuse of discretion. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Stearns v. Dean" on Justia Law

Eric Poemoceah, an Oklahoma resident and member of the Comanche Nation, participated in a protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline at the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota. On February 22, 2017, while attempting to negotiate with law enforcement officers for the peaceful exit of elders from the protest site, Poemoceah was tackled and arrested by officers, including Benjamin Swenson. He sustained injuries, including a pelvic fracture, and was charged with obstruction of a government function, a charge that was later dismissed.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota dismissed Poemoceah’s complaint with prejudice, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the First and Fourth Amendment claims and dismissed the remaining claims as inadequately pled. Poemoceah’s request for leave to amend his complaint was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Poemoceah plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Swenson, as the facts suggested that Swenson's use of force was not objectively reasonable. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Poemoceah’s deliberate indifference to medical needs claim, First Amendment retaliation claim, supervisory liability claims, Monell claim against Morton County, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under North Dakota law. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Poemoceah’s motion to amend his complaint. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the Fourth Amendment claim against Swenson. View "Poemoceah v. Morton County" on Justia Law