The “When” of Chevron: The Missed Opportunity of County of Maui

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, DANIEL FOLSOM

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and rising 3L Daniel Folsom comment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, in which the Court interpreted a provision of the Clean Water. Estreicher and Folsom argue that the case presented an opportunity to clarify the murky question of when the Chevron doctrine applies, yet the Court avoided answering that question.

Read More

The Unnecessary Protection of Qualified Immunity

JOANNA C. SCHWARTZ, SETH STOUGHTON

UCLA law professor Joanna C. Schwartz and South Carolina law professor Seth W. Stoughton address some of the arguments commonly asserted to support qualified immunity, the doctrine that shields police officers from civil liability for constitutional violations. Schwartz and Stoughton argue that eliminating qualified immunity should not affect police decision-making and that existing Supreme Court doctrine gives police officers plenty of leeway to make mistakes without violating the Constitution. Because qualified immunity applies only to unreasonable actions by police officers, eliminating or substantially restricting it should not a chilling effect on police officers’ ability or willingness to respond to critical incidents.

Read More

Stephen v. Smith

Docket: 19-1259

Opinion Date: June 26, 2020

Judge: Kobes

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief challenging petitioner's three Iowa methamphetamine-related convictions. The court held that petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that the Iowa court's application of the Jackson sufficiency of the evidence standard was both incorrect and unreasonable; petitioner's challenges to the state court's factual findings also fail; and petitioner procedurally defaulted on his argument regarding his conviction for lithium with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The court rejected petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady claim. Finally, the court held that petitioner's sentence did not violate the Fifth Amendment because Iowa courts have held the enhancements were to apply in tandem, and petitioner's Eighth Amendment argument was procedurally defaulted.

Curtis v. Christian County

Dockets: 19-1213, 19-1214

Opinion Date: June 26, 2020

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Sheriff's Office appealed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on First Amendment wrongful-discharge claims brought by former Deputy Sheriffs Timothy Bruce and Robert Curtis. Bruce and Curtis's complaints alleged that Cole, the newly elected sheriff, discharged them for political reasons in violation of their First Amendment rights. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity, holding that political loyalty is an appropriate requirement for the job of deputy sheriff under Missouri law because of the closeness and cooperation required between sheriffs and their deputies in fulfilling overlapping duties. In this case, Cole did not violate Bruce and Curtis's constitutional rights. Consequently, the county is also entitled to summary judgment on the claims against it. The court remanded for further proceedings.

United States v. Kidd

Dockets: 18-3327, 18-3328, 18-3558

Opinion Date: June 26, 2020

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Burke, Ibrahim, and Kidd's convictions of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion to strike references to the Minnesota anti-runner statute as surplusage; defendants' proposed jury instructions regarding the runner payments misstated the law and thus the district court properly declined to use it; the district court did not err by giving the final instruction that defined a scheme to defraud and, even assuming that the reference to omitting material facts was error, the error was harmless; and defendants' claims of prosecutor misconduct are rejected. Finally, the court affirmed Burke's sentence, holding that the district court did not err in calculating his advisory guideline range; the district court did not err by applying a two-level increase for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1; and the district court did not erroneously make a finding that encompassed all elements of perjury.

Abdi Omar v. Barr

Docket: 18-3351

Opinion Date: June 26, 2020

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the BIA's final order of removal, rejecting petitioner's claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) for deferral of his removal to Somalia. In this case, the BIA concluded that the IJ's ultimate finding that petitioner would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Somalia depended on testimony that was unsupported by adequate foundation, relied on country reports that discussed human rights violations at too high a level of generality, and cited treatment of persons with HIV that either fell short of torture or was not sufficiently widespread to show that petitioner likely would suffer torture. The court held that petitioner's claim -- that the agency never had subject matter jurisdiction to order him removed because the Notice to Appear issued by the Department did not specify a time and place of his removal proceedings -- is foreclosed by Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019). The court also held that the BIA's reasoning addressed the relevant evidence and provided sufficient justification for concluding that the IJ's finding was clearly erroneous. The court stated that it was satisfied that the BIA's decision accounted for all of the asserted risks in concluding that the IJ clearly erred.

Vogt v. State Farm Life Insurance Co.

Dockets: 18-3419, 18-3434

Opinion Date: June 26, 2020

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

Over 25,000 life insurance policyholders filed a class action, alleging that State Farm impermissibly included non-listed factors in calculating Cost of Insurance (COI) fees assessed on life insurance policies. After the jury returned a $34 million verdict in the class's favor, State Farm and the named plaintiff appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment with respect to State Farm's appeal, holding that the phrase "based on" in the COI provision is at least ambiguous and thus must be construed against State Farm. Therefore, the district court did not err in construing the policy language in this manner and granting summary judgment to plaintiff on issues of liability. The court also held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to plaintiff on State Farm's affirmative defense of limitations. Furthermore, the court held that the district court did not err in certifying the class or in denying State Farm's motion to decertify the class. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying State Farm's motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the alleged insufficiency of the damages models as evidence of damages suffered by class members. Finally, the court rejected State Farm's claims of evidentiary errors, and challenges to the judgment in favor of the named plaintiff. However, the court reversed and remanded with respect to the named plaintiff's cross appeal, holding that the district court erroneously denied plaintiff's motion for an award of prejudgment interest because the damages model does not include prejudgment interest for the entire time up until judgment.

Davis v. Saul

Dockets: 18-3422, 18-3451, 18-3452

Opinion Date: June 26, 2020

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Public Benefits

Plaintiffs each brought an action asserting that the ALJ who denied their application for benefits was not properly appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly declined to consider the issue and affirmed the judgments. In these cases, none of the claimants raised the issue during the proceedings before the Social Security Administration and thus the district court properly concluded that they waived their argument. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that their constitutional claims need not be exhausted and that exhaustion of this particular constitutional challenge would have been futile. The court further explained that this is not one of the rare situations in which a federal court should consider an issue that was not presented to the agency.