Joe, Joey, Joe-Baby, Sexist: Where’s Your Imposter Syndrome?

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman responds to a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing soon-to-be First Lady Jill Biden for using the academic title she earned. Professor Grossman dissects the op-ed, penned by a retired lecturer at Northwestern University, and explains the deep and pervasive sexism behind it.

Read More

Finch v. Payne

Docket: 19-2369

Opinion Date: December 18, 2020

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. 2254 motion for habeas relief based on the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. Defendant was convicted of aggravated residential burglary, aggravated assault on a family or household member, and first-degree terroristic threatening. The court held that plaintiff clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to self-representation; as soon as he manifested this clear and unequivocal invocation, the proceedings should have paused, and the trial court should have conducted a proper Faretta hearing; and thus the Arkansas Supreme Court's finding to the contrary was an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. The court also held that the record does not support a finding that plaintiff engaged in serious and obstructionist misconduct, and the Arkansas Supreme Court's finding to the contrary is objectively unreasonable. In this case, there is no evidence in the record that defendant was attempting to manipulate, subvert, or delay the trial process. Finally, the state waived its argument that there was a determination that plaintiff was incapable, under Faretta, of waiving his right to counsel.

Rowles v. Curators of the University of Missouri

Docket: 19-1946

Opinion Date: December 18, 2020

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

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

After plaintiff was found to have violated the University's policies prohibiting sexual harassment and stalking on the basis of sex, and was suspended for two years, he filed suit against the Curators of the University and four individual Title IX investigators. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to compel and the district court's discovery ruling did not prevent plaintiff from adequately opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment; summary judgment on the Title VI claim was appropriate because plaintiff failed to present evidence that his proffered comparators, including the two white students mentioned, were graduate students and thus similarly situated to him in all relevant respects; summary judgment on plaintiff's void for vagueness claim was appropriate because the University's policies provide adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited and the individual defendant's inability to agree on the exact scope of prohibited conduct or the definition of words in the policies does not mean the policies are subject to arbitrary enforcement; summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim was appropriate in its entirety; dismissal of the substantial overbreadth claim was appropriate where plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the University's policies against sexual harassment and stalking have a real and substantial effect on protected speech; dismissal of the sex discrimination under Title IX claim was appropriate where the complaint fails to plausibly allege that the investigation reached an outcome against the weight of the evidence or allege any additional facts suggesting bias based on his sex; and dismissal of the discrimination claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) were appropriate where plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for sex discrimination for reasons similar to his Title IX claims. Finally, although the court believed that it was error for the district court to dismiss the state law race discrimination claim, the error was harmless in light of the court's conclusion.

Cronin v. Peterson

Docket: 19-1054

Opinion Date: December 18, 2020

Judge: Roger Leland Wollman

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff, a police officer, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 based on the police department's investigation of him after it received allegations that plaintiff had purchased illegal steroids and interfered with a department investigation. In this case, defendant's home, police locker, police cruiser, and wife's vehicle were searched. Furthermore, his blood and urine were taken and analyzed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim that Sergeant Koepke had unlawfully detained plaintiff in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights where, taken together, the facts do not establish that Koepke lacked sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion that plaintiff might be involved in criminal activity. Therefore, Koepke was entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims that Koepke had unlawfully arrested plaintiff where Koepke was entitled to qualified immunity because the length of plaintiff's detention was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The court also affirmed summary judgment based on qualified immunity for Captain Peterson and Legal Advisor Peters and concluded that any omitted material facts from their warrant application was immaterial. Finally, the court affirmed summary judgment based on qualified immunity to Sergeant Reynolds where Reynold's search of plaintiff's wife's vehicle, which was not the vehicle identified in the search warrant, was authorized under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

United States v. Holly

Docket: 19-3202

Opinion Date: December 18, 2020

Judge: Grasz

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress firearms and drugs after defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle. In this case, the district court credited the officers' account that they observed or inferred that defendant failed to stop at a stop sign over defendant's experts' recreation of the incident ostensibly showing that was not possible. The court concluded that this was not clearly erroneous, and the officers' testimony was no so incredible or inconsistent as to justify disturbing the district court's finding. Having accepted the district court's findings of fact, the court concluded that the officers had probable cause to believe defendant had committed a traffic violation.

United States v. Isler

Docket: 19-1891

Opinion Date: December 18, 2020

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 42-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of theft of trade secrets and one count of making a false statement to the FBI, related to his access and use of confidential company information belonging to his former employer, DuPont, Inc. The court held that defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable where the district court committed no error in its factual findings as it related to its decision to vary upwards in imposing defendant's sentence; the district court committed no error in its application of the Guidelines to formulate defendant's sentencing range; and the district court did not rely on clearly erroneous facts as a basis to increase defendant's sentence. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court did not err in considering defendant's traffic infractions and past drug conviction in fashioning his sentence. Furthermore, the district court did not err by utilizing its wide latitude in assigning weight to specific sentencing factors, and nothing in the record demonstrates that the district court imposed a disproportionate sentence for defendant's crimes.

United States v. Robinson

Docket: 19-2207

Opinion Date: December 18, 2020

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court first concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during this arrest. In this case, detectives saw defendant shove another man and shout threatening words at him, which is itself potentially a crime under Missouri law. Because the detectives witnessed defendant committing what looked like an assault, they had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. The court also concluded that defendant has not shown that, but for the error in the jury instructions in light of Rehaif v. United States,139 S. Ct. at 2200, the outcome of his case would have been different. Therefore, defendant cannot establish plain error.

Johnson v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois

Docket: 19-2227

Opinion Date: December 18, 2020

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

Areas of Law: Insurance Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Safeco after the insurance company denied her underinsured motorist insurance (UIM) coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to Safeco. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that this case does not involve a set-off within a policy but stacking of separate policies; the anti-stacking provision in the policy unambiguously limits the total of plaintiff's UIM coverage to the highest applicable limit; and Safeco's coverage is not illusory. Therefore, Safeco's anti-stacking provision does not preclude Safeco's excess coverage from ever applying—it simply prevents plaintiff from stacking coverage from different policies when she has already received the highest applicable limit of UIM coverage.