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

The plaintiffs, two banking organizations, challenged a guidance document issued by a federal agency that oversees insured banks. The guidance, known as FIL 32, addresses the practice of charging multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees when a single transaction is presented for payment more than once. The guidance warns that such practices may pose a risk of being considered unfair or deceptive under federal law, particularly if customers are not adequately informed or given an opportunity to avoid additional fees. The plaintiffs argued that this guidance effectively acts as a binding regulation, requiring compliance measures and increasing their risk of enforcement, and that it was issued without following required rulemaking procedures.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the guidance. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were not redressable and that the guidance did not constitute a final agency action subject to judicial review.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but on the alternative ground that the plaintiffs’ claims were not ripe for judicial review. The appellate court held that the guidance was not a final agency action because it did not impose binding obligations or legal consequences, nor did it compel the banks to take or refrain from specific actions. The court found that the guidance merely outlined supervisory expectations and risk-mitigation practices, without creating enforceable rules or safe harbors. The court also determined that withholding judicial review would not cause significant hardship to the plaintiffs, as the enforcement risk existed independently of the guidance. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Minnesota Bankers Assoc. v. FDIC" on Justia Law

Raymond Thompson purchased a custom Harley Davidson motorcycle and paid off all liens, but after the sale, the seller, Nathan Rench, fraudulently obtained a duplicate title, preventing Thompson from registering the motorcycle. Later, two individuals claiming to act for Rench arrived at Thompson’s home with Manchester, Missouri police officers, seeking to recover the motorcycle. The officers, after verifying the duplicate title and registration in Rench’s name, allowed the individuals to take the motorcycle from Thompson’s fenced backyard. Thompson was not home at the time. The next day, after Thompson reported the motorcycle stolen and provided evidence of his ownership, the officers instructed Rench to return the motorcycle, but Rench refused. The motorcycle was eventually recovered after Rench’s arrest.Thompson filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his property and allowing the removal of his motorcycle, and his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. He also sought sanctions for the police department’s failure to preserve body and dash camera footage. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers on the basis of qualified immunity, denied Thompson’s motion for sanctions, and denied his motion for partial summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right by entering Thompson’s backyard or by allowing the motorcycle’s removal, as their actions were consistent with existing Eighth Circuit precedent regarding limited warrantless entries and peacekeeping roles. The court also found no evidence of joint action or coercion by the officers sufficient to establish state action for a due process claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions, as Thompson failed to show prejudice from the loss of the recordings. View "Thompson v. Cockrell" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours, police responded to a 911 call from a woman who reported that her boyfriend, Shaquan Coffer, had damaged her car and was armed. Officers located the vehicle, separated the two individuals, and learned from the woman that Coffer was intoxicated and carrying a firearm. While speaking with an officer, Coffer attempted to conceal something in his waistband and then fled on foot. During the chase, officers saw him reach into his pants and heard a metallic sound; they recovered a loaded handgun, painted white, from the ground 11 seconds later. Coffer was apprehended shortly after.Following Coffer’s guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa considered whether to apply a two-level sentencing enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury during flight from law enforcement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. The Presentence Investigation Report did not recommend the enhancement, but the government objected. At sentencing, the district court found that, although accidental discharge was unlikely due to the firearm’s safety features, discarding a loaded gun in public created a substantial risk to others, particularly because of the gun’s appearance. The court applied the enhancement, increasing Coffer’s guideline range, and imposed a 71-month sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in applying the enhancement, as the government failed to show that Coffer’s conduct created more than a speculative risk of harm; there was no evidence of bystanders or actual endangerment beyond the mere act of discarding the firearm. The appellate court vacated Coffer’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding the error in guideline calculation was not harmless. View "United States v. Coffer" on Justia Law

During an oil pipeline protest in Hubbard County, Minnesota, Matthew Locke and another protestor locked themselves to construction equipment using a device known as a “sleeping dragon,” which made removal difficult. Law enforcement officers, including Sheriff Cory Aukes and Chief Deputy Scott Parks, responded to the scene. In their efforts to remove Locke, the officers used several pain compliance techniques, applying pressure to various nerves on Locke’s head and neck. Locke alleges that as a result, he suffered facial paralysis, tinnitus, and emotional distress. After being removed from the device by extraction teams, Locke was evaluated by EMTs, taken to the hospital, and then jailed.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Locke’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Minnesota law. The court held that Sheriff Aukes and Deputy Parks were entitled to qualified and official immunity, and that Locke’s complaint did not state a claim for municipal liability against Hubbard County. The district court also dismissed Locke’s state law claims for assault and battery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Eighth Circuit held that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, Locke plausibly alleged a violation of his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, as the officers’ use of pain compliance techniques on a nonviolent, passively resisting misdemeanant was not objectively reasonable. The court also found that the district court erred in dismissing the official capacity claim without considering whether the sheriff was a final policymaker for the county. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit reversed the grant of official immunity on the state law claims, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged willful violation of a known right. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Locke v. County of Hubbard" on Justia Law

Two former employees of a steel plant in Blytheville, Arkansas, brought claims against their employer, alleging racial discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. One employee, who worked at the plant for nearly three decades, was terminated after a series of disciplinary incidents, including an altercation during an internal investigation and subsequent violations of workplace policies. The other employee, who resigned after several years, claimed he was subjected to disparate discipline and racially offensive remarks by supervisors, including an incident where a supervisor referred to himself as a “slave driver” and mimed cracking a whip.After the plaintiffs filed suit in Arkansas state court, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiffs amended their complaint, dropping federal claims and non-diverse parties, leaving only state law claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on all claims, finding insufficient evidence to support the allegations of discrimination, retaliation, or a hostile work environment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination or retaliation, as there was no evidence of similarly situated employees being treated more favorably or of a causal connection between protected activity and adverse employment actions. The court also found that the incidents cited did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment, particularly given the employer’s prompt and effective responses to reported incidents. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. View "Warren v. Nucor Corporation" on Justia Law

Two brothers, Tom and Robert Hoffmann, were formerly partners in a family heating and air conditioning business. After Robert bought out Tom’s interest, they settled their disputes in state court with an agreement that included a four-year prohibition on Tom’s use of the “Hoffmann” name in any HVAC business, as well as non-disparagement and non-solicitation clauses. After the four-year period, Tom started a new company, Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC, using the family name. Robert and his company, Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., objected and filed suit in federal court, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Tom and his company on the copyright claim, finding insufficient evidence of damages or a causal link between the alleged infringement and any profits. The remaining claims proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a mixed verdict largely favoring Tom and his company on the trademark and unfair competition claims. Both sides sought attorney fees, but the district court denied all requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the copyright claim, holding that the evidence of damages and profits was too speculative. It also upheld the jury instructions and verdict on the trademark claims, finding the instructions properly reflected the law regarding customer sophistication and initial-interest confusion. The court agreed that ambiguity in the settlement agreement’s language about post-four-year use of the Hoffmann name was a factual question for the jury. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of attorney fees to Robert, as he had not personally incurred any fees. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "Hoffmann Bros. Heating & Air v. Hoffmann Air & Heating" on Justia Law

Philip Myers, a native and citizen of Liberia, was adopted by a U.S. citizen and entered the United States as a child. He later sustained several criminal convictions, including for aggravated felonies. In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Myers claimed derivative citizenship through his adoptive mother, who had become a naturalized U.S. citizen, and also alleged that he had been abused by her. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had previously denied his derivative citizenship application, finding insufficient evidence that he was in his adoptive mother’s legal and physical custody at the relevant time. During removal proceedings, Myers, sometimes represented by counsel and sometimes pro se, was found competent to proceed without safeguards. He applied for various forms of relief, including asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but these were denied.The Immigration Judge ordered Myers removed to Liberia. Myers appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the competency determination was flawed and that he should have been found incompetent to proceed pro se. The BIA found no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s competency finding and dismissed the appeal. Myers then moved to reopen the proceedings, citing a pending motion with USCIS regarding derivative citizenship, alleged errors in the competency determination, a new asylum claim based on his sexual orientation, and a pending T-visa application as a victim of sex trafficking. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, and Myers was removed to Liberia.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and found none. The court also rejected Myers’s constitutional challenge to the statutory requirements for derivative citizenship and found no genuine issue of material fact regarding his nationality claim. The petition for review was denied. View "Myers v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to a 2024 rule issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) that revised the method for calculating the “petroleum equivalency factor” (PEF), which is used to determine the fuel economy values of electric vehicles for regulatory purposes. The DOE had previously used a “fuel content factor” of 1/0.15, which significantly inflated the fuel economy ratings of electric vehicles. In its 2023 proposal, DOE suggested eliminating this factor, but in the final rule, it opted to phase it out gradually over several model years. The final rule also introduced a new method for calculating the PEF, using a “cumulative gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of electricity” based on the projected useful life of an electric vehicle fleet—a method not included in the proposed rule.Several states and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce petitioned for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. They argued that the DOE exceeded its statutory authority by retaining the fuel content factor and violated notice-and-comment requirements by adopting a new calculation method not previously proposed. The petitioners asserted standing based on increased costs to maintain public roads due to heavier electric vehicles and environmental harms from increased greenhouse gas emissions.The Eighth Circuit found that the petitioners had standing and that the case was not moot, even in light of new EPA emissions standards. The court held that DOE exceeded its statutory authority by retaining the fuel content factor, as the relevant statute did not authorize such an approach. Additionally, the court determined that DOE violated notice-and-comment procedures by failing to provide adequate notice of the new cumulative calculation method. The court concluded that these deficiencies were not severable from the rest of the rule.Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the 2024 final rule, and remanded the matter to DOE. View "State of Iowa v. Wright" on Justia Law

Several commercial air tour operators challenged federal regulations that banned all commercial air tours over Mount Rushmore National Memorial and Badlands National Park. The dispute arose after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service, in response to statutory requirements and litigation, issued air tour management plans (ATMPs) in 2023 that prohibited such tours, citing negative impacts on visitor experience, wildlife, and tribal cultural resources. The operators argued that the agencies’ actions were arbitrary and capricious, violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and failed to consider reasonable alternatives or aviation safety.Previously, the agencies had attempted to negotiate voluntary agreements with the tour operators, as permitted by the Air Tour Management Act. However, after one operator declined to participate, the agencies shifted to developing ATMPs. This change was influenced by a writ of mandamus issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which compelled the agencies to bring certain parks into compliance with the Act. The agencies then considered several alternatives before ultimately banning all commercial air tours in the final plans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the petitions for review filed by the tour operators. The court held that the agencies’ decision to end voluntary agreement negotiations and proceed with ATMPs was not arbitrary or capricious. It further found that the agencies complied with NEPA’s procedural requirements, used reasonable data, considered an adequate range of alternatives, and sufficiently addressed aviation safety concerns. The court concluded that the agencies’ decisions were reasonable and reasonably explained, and therefore denied the petitions to vacate the air tour management plans. View "Badger Helicopters Inc. v. FAA" on Justia Law

A group of business associations challenged a Minnesota law that prohibits employers from taking adverse action against employees who decline to attend meetings or receive communications about religious or political matters. The law also requires employers to post a notice of employee rights and directs the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry to develop an educational poster about these rights. The plaintiffs sued the Minnesota Attorney General, the Commissioner, and the Governor, seeking to prevent enforcement of the law. The Attorney General and Commissioner both declared that they had not enforced, nor intended to enforce, the law. The Governor, who was added as a defendant after making public statements about the law, also had no direct enforcement role.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was based on state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The court found that the Governor’s public statements and removal power over the Commissioner, as well as the Commissioner’s duties under the law, were sufficient to allow the suit to proceed under the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. The court also found that the Attorney General’s statutory enforcement authority was enough to keep him in the case, despite his declaration of no present intent to enforce the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. It held that the Governor’s administrative powers, such as appointing or removing the Commissioner, were too attenuated from enforcement to make him a proper defendant under Ex parte Young. The Commissioner’s role in developing an educational poster was deemed ministerial, not enforcement-related. As for the Attorney General, the court found that his sworn declaration of no present intent to enforce the law deprived the plaintiffs of standing. The court ordered dismissal with prejudice as to the Governor and Commissioner, and without prejudice as to the Attorney General. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Ellison" on Justia Law