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

The Religious Sisters of Mercy, Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center, SMP Health System, and the University of Mary (collectively, “RSM plaintiffs”) filed suit, alleging that the Department of Health and Human Services (‘HHS’) had violated, among other things, the APA, the First Amendment, and the RFRA. Additionally, the Catholic Benefits Association (CBA); Diocese of Fargo (Diocese); Catholic Charities North Dakota (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the RFRA against HHS’s and the EEOC’s interpretation and enforcement of the relevant statutes to the extent they required the CBA plaintiffs to “provide, perform, pay for, cover, or facilitate access to health services for gender transition.”   The district court held that the RFRA entitles Plaintiffs to permanent injunctive relief. On appeal, HHS and the EEOC (collectively, “the government”) challenge the district court’s grant of declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to Plaintiffs.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court first held that the CBA lacks associational standing to sue on behalf of unnamed members. However, the court held that Plaintiffs have satisfied the elements necessary to establish standing to challenge the government’s interpretation of Section 1557. Moreover, the court wrote that contrary to the government’s position, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the CBA plaintiffs face a “credible threat” of enforcement from the EEOC. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court correctly held that “intrusion upon the Catholic Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion is sufficient to show irreparable harm.” View "The Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Xavier Becerra" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued various officials of the State of Arkansas, alleging that these officials (collectively, “ADHS defendants”) violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The officials moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The district court denied the motion. On appeal, the ADHS Defendants argued that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits by individuals brought against a state or its agencies or departments, regardless of the relief sought.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiffs’ ARChoices benefits must be reassessed each year and, according to Plaintiffs’ allegations, “ADHS has no plans to switch to a different assessment tool, allocation methodology, or notice of action than those now used.” The very harm alleged remains likely to recur barring a change in the state’s operation of the program or judicial intervention. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that sovereign immunity does not bar this suit.   Further, the court concluded that beneficiaries have a clearly established right to be provided adequate notice of reduction, loss, or termination of benefits. No fundamental difference exists between this case and Jacobs: in both cases, beneficiaries suffered a loss of benefits under ARChoices. Thus, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that ADHS violated their right to notice. Finally, the court held that Plaintiffs have also alleged involvement by each ADHS defendant in creating, applying, or interpreting this policy. Thus, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged facts to survive a dismissal motion raising the defense. View "Ginger Elder v. Cindy Gillespie" on Justia Law

PIRS Capital, LLC (“PIRS”), appeals the district court’s order that affirmed the bankruptcy court’s April 2021 order denying PIRS’s motion to set aside a January 2018 default judgment in the amount of $157,214. PIRS argues it is entitled to this extraordinary post-judgment relief because the bankruptcy trustee did not properly serve her adversary's complaint seeking recovery of preferential transfers. PIRS relies on provisions of Rule 7004(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the bankruptcy counterpart to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that here, consistent with Espinosa, the bankruptcy court and the district court concluded the bankruptcy court had at least an arguable basis for jurisdiction. First, the trustee arguably complied with Rule 7004(b)(3) by serving PIRS in the manner directed in its Proof of Claim, a direction reinforced by the trustee’s diligent research of PIRS on the DOS website. Second, the trustee sent the summons and complaint by certified mail, return the receipt requested and received the receipt showing the summons and complaint was actually received by a PIRS employee at its Suite 403 address. The Supreme Court in Espinosa expressly stated that receiving actual notice “more than satisfied [PIRS’s] due process rights.”   Further, the court wrote that even if Rule 60(b)(6) relief is not precluded under Kemp, it agrees with the district court that “the circumstances that led to PIRS’s failure to defend were of its own making [and therefore] PIRS cannot establish the existence of exceptional circumstances” that warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief. View "PIRS Capital, LLC v. Renee Williams" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendants of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. After the trial, the district court denied their motions for acquittal. Defendants appealed, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that viewing the evidence most favorably to the verdict; there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Defendant satisfied each element of the conspiracy charge beyond a reasonable doubt. First, an agreement was proven from the distribution of meth supplied by shipments from Defendants. Second, the evidence supports a reasonable inference that Defendant knew of the conspiracy by shipping a package to a conspirator; tracking packages sent to Rapid City—at least one with meth; and receiving payments from the conspirator. Third, Defendant intended to join the conspiracy by these facts and circumstances.   Further, the court held that sufficient evidence supported co-Defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of meth. First, as evidence of an agreement, the informant testified that the conspirator received his meth from co-Defendant and in return, co-Defendant received several wire payments. Second, co-Defendant knew of the conspiracy by providing his cell phone number for the informant’s payments. Third, based on all the facts and circumstances, co-Defendant knowingly and intentionally joined the conspiracy. Since the informant alone purchased over 500 grams of meth from the conspirator, the jury reasonably found a conspiracy to distribute over 500 grams of a controlled substance. View "United States v. Kirbesha Bailey" on Justia Law

GWG DLP Funding V, LLC was the policy owner and beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by PHL Variable Insurance Company. After GWG transferred beneficiary rights and ownership to Wells Fargo, PHL terminated the policy. GWG and Wells Fargo disputed the termination, and the parties attempted to settle the dispute. After some negotiations, the insured died, and PHL refused to honor the alleged agreement the parties had reached. GWG and Wells Fargo sued PHL for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and sought a declaratory judgment that prevents PHL from terminating the policy. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal of their claims.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the alleged agreement in early February was incomplete and that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for breach of contract. Further, the court wrote that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. First, there is no enforceable agreement based on the email exchange. Thus, there was no contract under which PHL could have breached the duty of good faith. Second, even if the parties were bound by the early February communications, Plaintiffs alleged no dishonest motive on PHL’s part. View "GWG DLP Funding V, LLC v. PHL Variable Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Defendant violated her joint custody agreement with Petitioner by traveling from Switzerland to the United States with their then-12- year-old daughter, M.D., in July 2020. Petitioner filed a petition seeking M.D.’s return to Switzerland, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention). After an evidentiary hearing on the merits, the district court denied the petition based on the mature child defense, finding that M.D. was of sufficient age and maturity such that the court should take account of her views and that she objected to returning to Switzerland. Petitioner appealed.   The Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case with directions to grant the petition for the return of M.D. under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The court explained that it agreed with the district court that M.D. is an “innocent party” in this acrimonious dispute. But because M.D. did not express a particularized objection to returning to Switzerland, instead describing a preference—for a variety of understandable reasons—to remain in the United States, the district court’s finding that M.D.’s statements constituted an objection within the meaning of the mature child defense was clearly erroneous. View "Vladyslav Dubikovskyy v. Elena Goun" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to narcotics and ammunition charges after the trail court denied his motion to suppress GPS locational data and subsequent post0-Miranda statements made to detectivews. Law enforcement, working with a confidential informant (CI), installed a GPS tracker on the CI's vehicle. Subsequently, Defendant borrowed CI's vehicle, which led to his arrest.The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his location and movements in a borrowed vehicle. View "United States v. Joshua Dewilfond" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the United States of America for injuries sustained from a fall on federal property. Specifically, he points to the General Services Administration’s (“GSA”) commitment to “making Federal buildings and facilities fully accessible to all people” and to “ensuring the full integration of individuals with disabilities who use [government] facilities.”He also asserts that the southwalk design violates the International Building Code (“IBC”) requirements for stairs.   The district court determined that Plaintiff’s tort claim was barred by the discretionary-function exception to the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity for tort claims. The district court therefore dismissed Plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that because Plaintiff has not pointed to any statutes or mandatory regulations that sufficiently constrain the GSA’s discretion over the building’s design, he has failed the first step in overcoming the discretionary-function exception. Further, the court held that because Plaintiff has failed to show that the Government’s discretion was not susceptible to policy analysis, the discretionary function exception bars his claim. View "Phillip Alberty v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant served a 48-month sentence for use of interstate facilities to promote prostitution and began a three-year term of supervised release in October 2020. The district court first revoked supervised release on August 31, 2021, when Defendant admitted drug use and failure to participate in required drug counseling; Defendant began a 24-month term of supervised release that day.   His probation officer petitioned the court to issue a warrant, alleging numerous violations of supervised release. At the conclusion of a revocation hearing, the court found that Defendant committed the violations, revoked supervised release, and sentenced Defendant to 10 months’ imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release. Defendant appealed the revocation sentence, arguing the court violated his due process right to confront witnesses at the revocation hearing and imposed additional special conditions of supervised release that are substantively unreasonable.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the facts recited in the warrant petition with the author present to testify, and Defendant’s testimony corroborating some of the alleged Grade C violations, including admissions he had not complied with sex offender registration requirements and had tested positive for cocaine use, were ample evidence supporting the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release. Further, the court found that the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion when it imposed additional conditions addressing what the court described as Defendant’s “high-risk behavior” and “continued disregard for the conditions imposed.” View "United States v. La'Ron Clower" on Justia Law

The Anoka County Jail referred every detainee born outside the United States, including Plaintiff, to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The district court determined that this policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, and a jury awarded her $30,000 on a false-imprisonment theory.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court’s conclusion was correct: Anoka County’s policy is a classic example of national-origin discrimination. On its face, it treats people differently depending on where they were born. Those born abroad must wait anywhere from 20 minutes to 6 hours longer while deputies consult ICE. For those born in the United States, by contrast, there is no call and release is immediate. The court explained that it is also significant that Anoka County had national-origin-neutral alternatives at its disposal. The failure to consider these alternatives provides further evidence that it did not adopt a narrowly tailored policy. View "Myriam Parada v. Anoka County" on Justia Law