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

A mother and her minor daughter, both citizens of El Salvador, entered the United States in 2017 without valid entry documents. The mother applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that a criminal gang in El Salvador had repeatedly threatened her family with violence and kidnapping in attempts to extort money. Although her family partially complied with the gang’s demands and was not physically harmed, she asserted that returning to El Salvador would put her and her children at risk, as the gang had widespread influence and the Salvadoran government could not protect them.An immigration judge found the mother's testimony not credible due to inconsistencies and determined that, even if her testimony were credible, the threats did not amount to past persecution, the alleged social groups were not cognizable, and she could relocate within El Salvador. The judge denied all claims for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that she had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA also determined that her argument that the immigration judge was biased was waived because she raised it only in a conclusory manner and abandoned it in her appellate brief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision as the final agency action. The court held that the BIA properly applied its waiver rule and did not err in finding the due process claim waived, as the argument was inadequately raised and not meaningfully pursued. The court also concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the Department of Homeland Security’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion regarding enforcement priorities. The petition for review was denied. View "Quijano-Duran v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The dispute arose from a business venture related to agricultural investments in Brazil. In 2007, an investment firm transferred funds totaling over $800,000 to another company to cover farm-related expenses, allegedly with the understanding that these funds would be repaid once the farm became profitable and prior to any distributions to owners. The parties later executed a written document summarizing their agreement, which stated that the investment firm would recover its funding when a newly formed management company generated fees. Despite the farm ultimately turning a profit years later, the management company never generated fees and the transferred funds were never repaid.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa considered claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. The court found that the written contract unambiguously set out the terms of repayment, which were not satisfied because the management company never generated fees. It also concluded that the document was fully integrated, barring admission of extrinsic evidence to vary its terms. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, finding no genuine dispute of material fact.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment rulings de novo. The appellate court held that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to support the claim that the written agreement was not fully integrated. It also found that the lack of an integration clause and the plaintiff’s testimony did not create a genuine dispute about integration. The court concluded that, because the contract was fully integrated, extrinsic evidence could not be used to alter its terms, and that implied contract and quasi-contract claims were precluded. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Galtere, Inc. v. Harvest Capital Asset Mgmt." on Justia Law

Mark Isham and C.K. were in a long-term relationship, living together intermittently. In March 2023, after C.K. stayed with Isham following her release from a treatment center, the two drank alcohol and argued, resulting in Isham physically assaulting C.K. on two separate occasions. Several days after the second assault, C.K., who is an amputee, called 911 and reported being held against her will and physically abused. Police officers responded to Isham’s home, spoke separately to both individuals, and eventually arrested Isham after he admitted to hitting C.K. C.K. was hospitalized and required surgery for a fractured jaw.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota heard Isham’s pretrial motions. The court denied Isham’s motion to suppress statements he made to officers before being arrested, concluding he was not in custody during the questioning. The court also partially granted a government motion to admit evidence of Isham’s prior assaults against C.K., allowing testimony about more recent incidents but excluding older ones. At trial, the jury acquitted Isham of assault with a dangerous weapon but convicted him of assault resulting in serious bodily injury and assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to an intimate partner.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of the suppression motion de novo and found that Isham was not subjected to custodial interrogation before his arrest, as the questioning was brief, non-coercive, and Isham voluntarily participated. The appellate court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior assaults, finding it relevant to issues raised at trial and adequately limited by jury instructions. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Isham" on Justia Law

A member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, the defendant moved onto the Swallow Ranch, located in the Cuny Table area of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, in 2022. He lived in a camper and worked as a ranch hand. During his time there, he developed a relationship with a 15-year-old girl, A.S., whom he taught to train horses and later groomed and sexually abused. The abuse occurred at various locations on and near the ranch, including a campground, a rock formation, and his camper. On one occasion, he also abused A.S.’s 12-year-old sister, N.S. The defendant further solicited nude photos from A.S. and from another minor, C.J.E., through Snapchat. When confronted by family members about the abuse, he denied the allegations and messaged N.S., urging her to claim A.S. was lying to protect himself from potential jail time. An FBI agent later investigated, uncovering evidence of the defendant’s communications and the sexual abuse.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota tried the case. A jury convicted the defendant on multiple counts, including sexual abuse of a minor, abusive sexual contact, attempted sexual exploitation of a minor, attempted receipt of child pornography, and witness tampering. The district court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced him to 480 months in prison.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the convictions for sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, attempted sexual exploitation, and attempted receipt of child pornography, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings. However, the court vacated the witness tampering conviction, finding insufficient evidence that the defendant contemplated a particular, foreseeable proceeding as required by law. The Eighth Circuit also vacated the entire sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of the vacated conviction. View "United States v. Goodlow" on Justia Law

A man experiencing a severe mental health crisis was shot and killed by a law enforcement officer after a prolonged standoff at his family’s ranch. Family members had contacted emergency services, reporting his deteriorating condition, threats of suicide, and the presence of firearms. Multiple law enforcement agencies responded, including the Custer County Sheriff’s Office and the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP). After failed negotiation attempts, the NSP disabled the man’s vehicle, and as he exited and approached officers unarmed, he was fatally shot by an NSP officer.The personal representative of the decedent’s estate filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various officers, the Sheriff’s Office, and the NSP training supervisor. Claims against the NSP officers in their official capacities were dismissed due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, as were claims against most officers in their individual capacities except for the officer who fired the shots. During discovery, the plaintiff served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition subpoena on the non-party Nebraska State Patrol regarding officer training. The NSP moved to quash, citing state sovereign immunity. Both the magistrate judge and the district court denied the motion, relying on earlier circuit precedent that government entities are subject to federal discovery rules.Upon interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of NSP’s motion to quash. The appellate court held that state sovereign immunity does, in this instance, bar enforcement of the deposition subpoena because the requested discovery was disruptive and infringed on the state’s autonomy and resources. The court clarified that prior circuit statements to the contrary were non-binding dicta and not controlling. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s order. View "Mick v. Gibbons" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who, along with others, participated in two separate home invasion robberies targeting the residence of Michael Robertson. Surveillance footage captured Williams and others attempting to break in one night, and returning the following night to forcibly enter, simulating a police raid. During the second invasion, gunshots were fired by others, resulting in the death of Jessica Brandon, though Williams was not armed at that time. Substantial quantities of drugs and cash were found in the home, suggesting the motive was robbery of a drug dealer.Williams was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on charges including murder with a firearm during a crime of violence and two counts of interference with commerce by robbery. He pleaded guilty and was initially sentenced to a total of 660 months’ imprisonment. After the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Taylor that Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924, Williams’s conviction for murder with a firearm was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which remanded the case for resentencing on the two remaining robbery counts.Upon resentencing, the district court imposed consecutive sentences of 222 months for each count, resulting in a total of 444 months. Williams appealed, arguing the district court erred in applying the sentencing package doctrine, failed to adequately explain the equal sentences for each count, and imposed an unreasonable sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that application of the sentencing package doctrine was proper, the district court’s explanation was sufficient, and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The court affirmed the amended judgment. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

A group of parolees who had been detained challenged the procedures used by the Missouri Department of Corrections for revoking parole, arguing that these procedures violated their due process rights. The plaintiffs brought a class action suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of all adult parolees in Missouri who currently face or will face parole revocation proceedings. The district court issued an order in 2020 requiring the Department to implement certain changes. After further proceedings, the plaintiffs sought and were awarded attorneys’ fees for their partial success and for monitoring the Department’s compliance.The Missouri Department of Corrections appealed the district court’s fee awards, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) limited the attorneys’ fees that could be awarded. The district court had repeatedly rejected the Department’s argument, finding that the PLRA’s fee cap did not apply because the certified class included parolees who were not detained and because some of the relief benefited non-detained parolees. The district court issued its final judgment in January 2025 and permanently enjoined the Department while awarding additional attorneys’ fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether the PLRA’s attorneys’ fee cap under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d) applied to the class action. The Eighth Circuit held that the fee cap does apply because the certified class consisted of individuals who are, or will be, detained during parole revocation proceedings and thus fall under the statutory definition of “prisoner.” The court also found that the PLRA’s fee cap section is not limited to actions challenging prison conditions. The Eighth Circuit vacated the fee awards and remanded the case for the district court to recalculate the fee awards in accordance with the PLRA’s limitations. View "Gasca v. Precythe" on Justia Law

Get Loud Arkansas and other plaintiffs challenged an Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners rule that required all voter registration applications to have a handwritten or “wet” signature, excluding digital or electronic signatures. The controversy arose after Get Loud developed an online voter registration tool, which allowed applicants to sign digitally and resulted in a significant increase in voter registrations, particularly among young voters. Following publicity about the tool’s success, the Arkansas Secretary of State instructed county clerks to reject electronically signed applications. Despite an opinion by the Arkansas Attorney General affirming the legality of electronic signatures, the Board adopted a rule requiring wet signatures, which forced Get Loud to modify its operations, reduce the effectiveness of its registration efforts, and expend additional resources.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, arguing that the rule violated the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B), which prohibits denying the right to vote based on immaterial errors or omissions on voter registration applications. The district court found that the rule likely violated federal law and granted a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of the wet signature requirement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Get Loud had standing due to direct interference with its core activities. The court concluded that Arkansas’s rule was not material in determining voter qualifications, as election officials did not use signature type to assess eligibility and had previously accepted both wet and digital signatures without issue. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s injunction, holding that enforcing the rule violated the Materiality Provision and that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs. View "Get Loud Arkansas v. Jester" on Justia Law

Richard Sims was charged with several offenses stemming from a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. In October 2023, he pleaded guilty to five counts and a forfeiture allegation without a plea agreement. Before sentencing, Sims sought to withdraw his guilty plea, citing confusion about the consequences of the plea, diminished mental capacity due to prior brain surgeries, and health issues including cancer and vision and hearing impairments. He also requested new counsel. The district court held a status conference, denied his motion to withdraw the plea, but granted his request for new counsel.Following this, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri sentenced Sims in January 2025. The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for his offenses was 360 months to life in prison. The government requested a 360-month sentence, while Sims, referencing his acceptance of responsibility and serious health problems, requested the statutory minimum of 120 months. The district court considered Sims’s health issues and age but also noted his significant criminal history and the seriousness of the offense, ultimately imposing a below-guidelines sentence of 240 months.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Sims challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The appellate court held that Sims’s general claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not supported by the record and were more appropriate for post-conviction proceedings. It further found that the district court did not err in concluding Sims was competent to plead guilty and was not required to order a competency evaluation. Regarding sentencing, the Eighth Circuit determined that the district court properly considered Sims’s health and other relevant factors, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 240-month sentence. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Sims" on Justia Law

Missouri River Energy Services provides electricity to municipal utilities in several Midwest states and joined the Southwest Power Pool, an independent regional transmission organization, in October 2015. Prior to Missouri River’s integration, Southwest Power Pool had already allocated all available long-term firm transmission rights, which are financial instruments designed to protect load-serving entities from congestion charges on the transmission grid. Since joining, Missouri River has requested long-term transmission rights but has not received any, because existing rights holders had already claimed the available capacity.After repeatedly receiving no long-term rights, Missouri River filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2023. Missouri River argued that the allocations by Southwest Power Pool violated both the governing tariff and FERC’s Order No. 681, and that FERC’s rejection of its complaint was arbitrary and capricious. FERC denied the complaint, finding no violation of the tariff or Order No. 681, and determined that Missouri River was not entitled to a specific allocation of long-term rights under federal law or the tariff.Missouri River then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The court held that the Federal Power Act and Order No. 681 require that long-term transmission rights be made available to the class of load-serving entities, but do not guarantee individual entities such as Missouri River a specific allocation. The court further concluded that Southwest Power Pool had properly implemented its tariff, including the simultaneous feasibility test and procedures for handling parallel flows and shift factors, and that FERC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Eighth Circuit denied Missouri River’s petition for review, upholding FERC’s order. View "Missouri River Energy Services v. FERC" on Justia Law