American Law’s Worst Moment—2020

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—explains why the police murder of George Floyd was the worst moment of 2020 in American law. Professor Sarat proposes that we remember the event and that date—May 25—as “infamous,” a word reserved for rare and atrocious events like the bombing of Pearl Harbor, in an attempt to capture the brutality and inhumanity of the act.

Read More

United States v. Arkansas Department of Education

Dockets: 19-1340, 19-1342, 19-1348, 19-1349

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Erickson

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

After the school districts sought modification of existing desegregation consent decrees to allow their exemption from Arkansas's Public School Choice Act, Ark. Code. Ann. 6–18–1906, the district court granted the motions and modified the consent decrees to explicitly limit the transfer of students between school districts. The Department appealed, alleging that the modification imposed an impermissible interdistrict remedy. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that there was a substantial change in Arkansas law after the consent decrees were enacted and the district court's modification was not an impermissible interdistrict remedy. The court explained that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering and crediting evidence of white flight when it determined that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification of the consent decrees. Furthermore, based on the court's review of the record and the large degree of deference given to the district court, the court could not find that the district court abused its discretion in modifying the consent decrees.

Devine v. Walker

Docket: 19-2819

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Stras

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights

Plaintiff filed suit against various officials of an Arkansas jail, where he had been held as a pretrial detainee. After he was transferred to a facility in Texas, some of the defendants moved to stay the case. Although the case had already entered discovery, a magistrate judge granted the stay. Plaintiff then filed an objection to the motion to stay and a motion for relief from the magistrate order. The district court never acted on the motions, referred back to the magistrate judge, who then denied relief. The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal of a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive pretrial matter. In this case, without a decision of a district court, this court lacked jurisdiction to proceed any further.

Beadle v. City of Omaha

Docket: 19-3230

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

After Daniel Elrod was shot and killed by a former Omaha police officer, plaintiff filed suit against the officer and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. The district court granted summary judgment to the officer in his individual capacity only, ruling that the former officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claim. After the district court's summary judgment decision, plaintiff abandoned her case and did not respond to subsequent motions or discovery requests. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, finding (1) no abuse of discretion in dismissing plaintiff's case for failure to prosecute, (2) the dismissal for failure to prosecute bars appellate review of earlier entered interlocutory orders, and (3) plaintiff's failure to analyze in her brief issues related to other decisions identified in her Notice of Appeal constitutes a waiver.