Impeaching a Former President Is Plainly Constitutional

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that the text of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the power to impeach and convict Donald Trump, even though he is no longer President. Buchanan describes the unambiguous textual support for this conclusion, which Buchanan (and others) argue is also amply supported by the Constitution’s purpose, structure, and other interpretive approaches.

Read More

Kuessner v. Wooten

Docket: 19-1173

Opinion Date: January 28, 2021

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to cite any Eighth Circuit case considering probable cause under similar circumstances where an officer has probable cause to make a DWI arrest. Because there is no "precedent" or "controlling authority," the court looks for a "robust consensus of cases." The court explained that what constituted probable cause for a DWI arrest was not "sufficiently clear" at the time of arrest. Furthermore, a survey of DWI cases in Missouri demonstrates that even if defendant acted without arguable probable cause, existing law did not give him “fair warning” that his conduct was unconstitutional. In this case, it was not clearly established that defendant lacked arguable probable cause to believe that plaintiff had been driving based on the available facts: arriving alone, at the remote police station, early in the morning, keys in hand, to pick up another individual who had been arrested. Finally, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's Rule 56(e)(1) and 59(e) motions.

Quraishi v. Anderson

Docket: 19-2462

Opinion Date: January 28, 2021

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiffs, reporters with Al Jazeera America news network, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against an officer and the county, alleging civil rights claims stemming from their coverage of protests after the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The officer had deployed a tear-gas canister at plaintiffs while they were preparing for a live broadcast. The district court denied qualified immunity to the officer, permitting the reporters to proceed on their First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and state-law battery claims. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the reporters, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the reporters were not engaged in unlawful activity when the officer fired on them, and thus the officer did not have arguable probable cause to use the tear-gas. The court explained that, based on the robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority, it is clearly established that using an arrest (that lacks arguable probable cause) to interfere with First Amendment activity is a constitutional violation. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. However, when the officer deployed the tear-gas, it was not clearly established that his acts were a seizure. Accordingly, the district court should have granted qualified immunity to the officer on the Fourth Amendment claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court correctly denied summary judgment on the state-law claim. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Wood v. Wooten

Docket: 19-3507

Opinion Date: January 28, 2021

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging a claim for unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that defendant had probable cause to arrest plaintiff where he had an outstanding arrest warrant at the time of arrest, and the warrant was valid. Furthermore, plaintiff was driving with a broken headlight in violation of Missouri law. The court explained that, although defendant told plaintiff he was under arrest for a DWI, defendant had probable cause based on the outstanding warrant or the broken headlight. Furthermore, an officer's wrongly-stated reason for an arrest does not nullify an otherwise lawful arrest, and a claim that defendant fabricated evidence about the arrest does not negate his probable cause at the time of the arrest.