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

The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting preliminary injunctions enjoining enforcement of the Gestational Age Provisions and the Down Syndrome Provision of Missouri House Bill 126. The Gestational Age Provision provides, in relevant part, that "no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman at eight weeks gestational age or later, except in cases of medical emergency." The Down Syndrome Provision prohibits abortions if the provider "knows that the woman is seeking the abortion solely because of a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating Down [s]yndrome or the potential of Down [s]yndrome in an unborn child."As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that RHS has standing because the provisions at issue directly target physician conduct and put physicians at risk of civil and criminal sanctions. The court concluded that the Gestational Age Provisions do not merely have "the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion" before viability. Rather, the Gestational Age Provisions are bans, and the court agreed with the district court that RHS is likely to succeed on the merits of this claim. The court also concluded that, unlike a regulation, the Down Syndrome Provision does not set a condition that—upon compliance—makes the performance of a pre-viability abortion lawful, thus preserving the constitutional right to elect the procedure. Rather, it bans access to an abortion entirely. Therefore, RHS is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the Down Syndrome Provision. The court concluded that the remaining Dataphase factors - irreparable harm, balance of hardships and public interest - also supported the grant of the preliminary injunction. View "Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Parson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit concluded that defendant's unconditional guilty plea waived the lawful combatant immunity defense and affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and for providing material support to terrorists. In this case, defendant unconditionally pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to terrorists (Count 1), and providing material support to terrorists (Count 3), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 956(a) and 2339A. The district court accepted defendant's plea and subsequently sentenced defendant to 66 months' imprisonment.The court explained that defendant's plea is the equivalent of admitting all material facts alleged in the charge. The court concluded that defendant's assertion that the individual he assisted was involved with the Free Syrian Army and was therefore entitled to lawful combatant immunity directly contradicts the terms of the indictment. Therefore, defendant's unconditional guilty plea failed to preserve his lawful combatant immunity claim for appeal. View "United States v. Harcevic" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiring to deprive a pretrial detainee of his civil rights and depriving the pretrial detainee of his civil rights. The court concluded that the government produced more than sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the jury's finding of a conspiratorial agreement between defendant and three correctional officers to assault the pretrial detainee and then cover up the assault. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for assaulting the pretrial detainee a second time. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's 45-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court properly considered the sentencing factors, explaining that defendant's conduct was more egregious, he was more responsible for the detainee's injuries, and he threatened his coconspirators to cover up the assault. View "United States v. Hewitt" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit agreed with the tax court and held that taxpayers were not entitled to a new hearing because a revenue officer included notes and correspondence about a meeting with their attorney in the official file that was later made available to the settlement officer who reviewed the case. The court explained that, under the administrative-file rule, contemporaneous statements may permissibly be included in the file as long as they are pertinent to the revenue officer's consideration of the case, even if they would otherwise be prohibited. In this case, there is no dispute that the statements in the notes and letters were contemporaneous. Furthermore, the statements were not gratuitous. Therefore, taxpayers are not entitled to a new hearing. View "Stewart v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment following a jury verdict in favor of the City on plaintiff's claim of hostile work environment based on religion. At issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in precluding plaintiff from introducing testimony and a report by the City's retained but non-testifying expert psychiatrist who had conducted an independent medical examination of plaintiff.The court concluded that the expert's report would have been cumulative with other testimony regarding causation and damages, and any discussion of damages was immaterial because the jury never reached that issue. Therefore, the exclusion did not result in fundamental unfairness in the trial of the case, and the court need not consider whether the district court abused its substantial case management and discovery discretion in excluding the expert's independent medical examination report and testimony, an issue the court has not previously addressed. View "Cooper v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, attorneys and their law firm who specialize in timeshare exits for Missouri customers, filed suit in state court alleging time-share fraud. WVO, through its counsel, S&B, filed suit against plaintiffs in the district court for tortious conduct related to their timeshare exit business (the Florida Action).The Eighth Circuit dismissed the consolidated appeals based on lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the notices of appeal were entirely deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3(c)(1) because they appeal an order entered on a day when no order issued, from a district court that does not exist, to a court of appeals that does not exist. The court explained that the complete failure by parties who are attorneys engaged in multi-state litigation to comply with multiple essential elements of Rule 3(c)(1) is not "imperfect but substantial compliance with a technical requirement" that the court may excuse. Rather, it is an absolute bar to appeal. View "Newcomb v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc." on Justia Law

HRDC filed suit against Baxter County under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the Jail's postcard-only policy violates HRDC's First Amendment right to communicate with Jail inmates. HRDC also alleged that the Jail's rejection of HRDC's mailings violated HRDC's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights to notice and an opportunity to appeal the Jail's decisions. The district court initially granted partial summary judgment in favor of HRDC. After a bench trial, the district court held that the postcard-only policy was reasonably related to legitimate penological goals and did not violate HRDC's First Amendment rights. The district court awarded HRDC four dollars in nominal due process damages for its four discrete August 2016 mailings.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the due process ruling and concluded that the district court did not err in granting only nominal damages where HRDC failed to prove actual injury flowing directly from the technical due process violation in August 2016. The court vacated the First Amendment ruling where the district court made no finding of fact regarding whether HRDC proved its assertion that the postcard-only policy results in "a de facto total ban" on Jail inmates accessing HRDC's materials. The court explained that it is necessary for the court to have a finding on what, if any alternative means are available to HRDC to exercise its First Amendment interest in access to prisoners. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Human Rights Defense Center v. Baxter County, Arkansas" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed as moot Panera's appeal of the district court's order dismissing its civil action against Act III and former employees under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In light of Panera's acceptance of and submission to the Delaware court's jurisdiction and venue, both parties now agree that no actual controversy remains concerning proper venue. After considering the equities, including the circumstances leading to the filing of the action, and the public interest in public judgments, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss Panera's complaint. View "Panera, LLC v. Dobson" on Justia Law

Defendant was previously convicted of disturbing, injuring, and destroying real property of the United States in 2018, after the jury found that he drained wetlands protected by a Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conservation easement. The Eighth Circuit vacated defendant's first conviction because of an erroneous jury instruction. After a 2019 bench trial, the district court found defendant guilty of the same offense.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a government witness to testify as a lay witness where her testimony was limited to her firsthand knowledge and personal experience mapping wetlands covered by the FWS easements; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude testimony by the government's expert witness, an FWS wildlife biologist; the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the wetland areas defendant drained were identifiable wetlands covered by the easement; the district court did not err in declining to consult 7 C.F.R. 12.2(a)'s definition of wetlands to determine the scope of the easement or in excluding from trial any reference to the definition of wetlands or the criteria for delineating wetlands as set forth in the USDA regulations; viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, the verdict was supported by substantial evidence; and the district court did not err by rejecting defendant's request to modify the Wetlands Restoration Plan ordered as restitution. View "United States v. Mast" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 190-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement under USSG 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a dangerous weapon in connection with defendant's drug trafficking offense. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a minor role reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b). Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence did not create an unwarranted sentencing disparity and was not unreasonable where the record readily explains why the district court reasonably would impose different sentences on the two conspirators. In this case, defendant possessed a firearm while his coconspirator did not. View "United States v. Bandstra" on Justia Law