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

Arkansas Times filed suit against various members of the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees (UABT) in their official capacities as trustees concerning Arkansas Act 710 of 2017, seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Act and alleging that it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Act is entitled "An Act to Prohibit Public Entities from Contracting with and Investing in Companies That Boycott Israel; and for Other Purposes." The district court denied Arkansas Times's motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case.Considering the Act as a whole, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the term "other actions" in the definition of "boycott Israel" and "boycott of Israel" encompasses more than "commercial conduct" similar to refusing to deal or terminating business activities. Instead, the court explained that the Act requires government contractors, as a condition of contracting with Arkansas, not to engage in economic refusals to deal with Israel and to limit their support and promotion of boycotts of Israel. As such, the Act restricts government contractors' ability to participate in speech and other protected, boycott-associated activities recognized by the Supreme Court in N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982). Therefore, the court concluded that the Act prohibits the contractor from engaging in boycott activity outside the scope of the contractual relationship "on its own time and dime," and such a restriction violates the First Amendment. View "Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip" on Justia Law

This opinion supersedes the opinion issued on December 15, 2020, as rehearing by panel was granted on February 10, 2021.The Eighth Circuit reversed the tax court's grant of taxpayer's motion for summary judgment in an action where the Commissioner had determined that because taxpayer was not a bona fide resident of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), she and her husband owed federal income tax for the 2003 and 2004 tax years. It is undisputed that taxpayers did not intend to file tax returns with the IRS, but only with the USVI's Bureau of Internal Revenue (VIBIR).The court rejected claims that taxpayer and her husband met the USVI nonresident filing requirements, beginning the three-year statute of limitations in 26 U.S.C. 6501(a) and barring the IRS's claims. In this case, the VBIR's action of sending some of their tax documents to the IRS or their action of filing the returns with the Virgin Islands alone do not meet the filing requirements. Therefore, the court reversed the tax court's finding that taxpayer and her husband could assert the statute of limitations as a defense. View "Coffey v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted in part a petition for review of the the BIA's order upholding the IJ's decision to terminate petitioner's withholding of removal status, deny his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and deny his motion to remand based on new evidence. The court explained that once an alien is found to have committed a particularly serious crime, the agency no longer needs to engage in a separate determination to address whether the alien is a danger to the community. Therefore, the IJ and the BIA did not err in failing to consider petitioner's likelihood of future misconduct.The court found that the BIA's categorical ban on evidence concerning mental health issues is arbitrary and capricious. The court reaffirmed its position that all reliable information pertaining to the nature of the crime, including evidence of mental health conditions, may be considered in a particularly serious crime analysis. The court lacks jurisdiction to review petitioner's claim that the IJ and BIA erred in finding his testimony not credible because the claim relates to the termination of petitioner's statutory withholding of removal. To the extent that such adverse credibility determination impacted petitioner's claim for relief under CAT, the court concluded that the IJ supported her determination with specific, cogent reasons for her disbelief. The court upheld the finding that petitioner had not established that he was more likely than not to be tortured upon his return to Iraq. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review for further consideration of petitioner's mental health evidence in determining whether he is barred from withholding of removal based on a particularly serious crime. The court otherwise denied the petition. View "Shazi v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for five counts of drug-trafficking, but reversed his 25 month sentence, remanding for resentencing. The court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was not violated and rejected his claims of error related to the admission of map exhibits, submission of an unadmitted exhibit to the jury, the prosecutor's leading questions to a government witness, and the admission of firearm evidence. The court also held that the government's notice complied with 21 U.S.C. 851. However, because the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's 2006 Illinois conviction qualified as a "serious drug felony," the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence does not apply in his case. Therefore, defendant is entitled to resentencing. View "United States v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Specialized, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Minnesota Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act (MOSLA). The Eighth Circuit previously held that plaintiff failed to establish an essential element of his claim under RESPA, and remanded the case for further proceedings on his claim under the Minnesota statute. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Specialized.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence that he was injured by Specialized's conduct, and thus did not create a genuine dispute of material fact on an element of his state-law claim. View "Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and life sentence for five counts of aggravated sexual abuse and three counts of sexual abuse of a minor. While the court doubted that a search warrant that neither identifies the items to be seized nor incorporates an affidavit that might arguably cure the deficiencies meets the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, the court need not reach that question because any error in admitting the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.The court held that there was no error in admitting testimony from victims of defendant's sexual abuse because the evidence was substantially probative, rebutted defendant's defense, and was not unduly prejudicial. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a missing abuse victim's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1). View "United States v. Weber" on Justia Law

After defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, he was sentenced to 168 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,541,527.37.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment where the indictment sufficiently described a fraudulent scheme to violate the federal statutes regarding mail and wire fraud. In this case, the indictment lays out a sufficient basis for the government's charge that defendant committed fraud, and it informs the court and the parties involved of the facts underlying that charge. The court also held that the government met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the $1,541,527.37 loss total was attributable solely to settlement payments from the fraud scheme. Therefore, the district court did not err in adopting that figure as fairly representative of the actual loss caused by the scheme. View "United States v. Hansmeier" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Arkansas prisoners who are or were on death row for capital murder convictions, filed suit alleging that Arkansas's method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment. In an effort to obtain the necessary information about the existence of known and available alternatives that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain, they served subpoenas on several state correctional departments, including the NDCS. After the NDCS objected, the district court determined that the Eleventh Amendment did not categorically bar the subpoena. NDCS appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Arkansas district court dismissed the inmates' suit and the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered public disclosure of the documents.The Eighth Circuit held that this case has been rendered moot where there is no effective relief that the court could grant because the materials at issue are already public. The court explained that requiring the return or destruction of the subpoenaed documents would provide no effective relief, and the court declined to do either. Finally, no exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable here. View "McGehee v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit took this opportunity to clarify its jurisprudence about exceptions to discharge under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6) and concluded that a judgment for an intentional tort is not necessary to find judgment debt for a breach of contract nondischargeable. The willfulness requirement is met when the bankruptcy court finds facts showing that the debtor's conduct accompanying the breach of contract amounted to an intentional tort against the creditor. The court perceived that this aligns with the core of the analyses performed by the Ninth and Fifth Circuits.In this case, debtor sought to discharge hundreds of thousands of dollars in judgment debt in bankruptcy after a breach of contract lawsuit indebted him to his former employer. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination that the debt resulted from his infliction of a willful and malicious injury on his former employer and so was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). In this case, debtor's conduct amounted to an intentional tort under Missouri law. View "Luebbert v. Global Control Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of social security benefits to plaintiffs, rejecting plaintiffs' claim that the ALJs who denied their claims were not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The court held that plaintiffs' unexhausted claims are foreclosed by Davis v. Saul, 963 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2020), cert. granted, 2020 WL 6551772 (Nov. 9, 2020) (No. 20-105). View "Smith v. Saul" on Justia Law