If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
March 6, 2021

Table of Contents

B.W.C. v. Williams

Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law

United States v. Smith

Criminal Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Why the Supreme Court was Right Last Week to Deny Review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decisions Handed Down Prior to the 2020 Election

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

verdict post

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone argue that the U.S. Supreme Court correctly denied review last week of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions handed down before the 2020 election. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone explain why the majority denied review and point out that the dissenting opinions unwittingly demonstrate the rightness of the majority.

Read More

US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Opinions

B.W.C. v. Williams

Dockets: 20-1222, 20-2207

Opinion Date: March 5, 2021

Judge: William Duane Benton

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint challenging Missouri's form to claim a religious exemption from mandatory immunizations for school children, as violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs, children enrolled or seeking to reenroll in Missouri public schools, have sincere religious objections to immunization. After plaintiffs refused to fill out Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Form 11, plaintiffs were disenrolled from school until they filed the form. Plaintiffs claimed that the form and the text of the form regarding "vaccine education" violated their rights to free speech, free religious exercise, and equal protection. The court held that Form II does not compel speech, restrict speech, or incidentally burden speech, and thus does not violate plaintiffs' free speech rights; does not require plaintiffs to engage in conduct against their religious beliefs; and does not make plaintiffs morally complicit in the production or use of vaccinations. Rather, Form 11 communicates neutrally to anyone considering opting out on religious grounds that the government discourages it, but the ultimate decision belongs to the parents. The panel explained that the form states the government's neutral and generally applicable position that immunization prevents childhood diseases, and thus should be required for school attendance. The court also held that plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts about forced immunization education, and that Form 11 does not target religious believers or violate their right to equal protection. Finally, the court held that plaintiffs have not stated a hybrid rights claim that requires strict scrutiny.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

United States v. Smith

Docket: 19-3068

Opinion Date: March 5, 2021

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession with the intent to distribute five or more grams of actual methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court held that the officers had probable cause to detain defendant based on the registration violation alone and, given his earlier flight in the Nissan, it was not unreasonable for the officers to effectuate the stop by blocking the car in, or for the officer to ask defendant to step out of the car with his hands raised. Furthermore, defendant's initial failure to comply with the officer's commands and his furtive gestures, together with the car's earlier flight, made it reasonable for the officers to handcuff him. The court also concluded that, based on the smell of marijuana emanating from the car and the marijuana cigarette found in the passenger's jacket, the officers also had probable cause to search the entire vehicle for drugs and drug paraphernalia. After an officer had lawfully initiated the traffic stop and detained defendant, another officer's action in shining his flashlight to illuminate the interior of the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a lesser-included instruction on simple possession of methamphetamine.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043