How Allen v. Cooper Breaks Important New (if Dubious) Ground on Stare Decisis

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on language in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Allen v. Cooperdiscussing constitutional stare decisis in the context of state sovereign immunity. Amar points out some of the problems with the Court’s jurisprudence on state sovereign immunity and Congress’s Section 5 power, and he questions the Allen majority’s embrace of a “special justification” requirement for constitutional stare decisis.

Read More

United States v. Johnson

Dockets: 17-3776, 18-2455, 19-1449

Opinion Date: April 10, 2020

Judge: Roger Leland Wollman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for nine counts of wire fraud and one count of money laundering. The court held that the district court did not plainly err by finding that defendant's consent to search the vehicle was voluntary. In this case, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's finding that although defendant was being watched by deputies while on the property, did not have access to a phone, and was told that a warrant would be sought whether or not he consented to a search of his truck, his consent was not mere acquiescence to government authority. The court rejected defendant's contention that the government failed to prove venue was proper in the District of Minnesota where a reasonable jury could find that it was more likely than not that the emails at issue were sent from or received in Minnesota. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant, and his sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The court also held that the $2.1 million personal money judgment forfeiture did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. Finally, the court rejected defendant's arguments in two pro se appeals as without merit.

Napoli Shkolnik PLLC v. Trice

Docket: 18-2172

Opinion Date: April 10, 2020

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Legal Ethics

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Napoli's quantum meruit request for attorney's fees. The court held that the district court did not fail to balance all factors and equities as required under Minnesota law when determining the reasonable value of Napoli's legal services. In this case, Napoli's services harmed, rather than helped, its clients. Therefore, the district court's consideration of additional factors would not have disturbed the district court's conclusion. The court also held that the district court applied the correct legal standard to consider the quantum meruit claims, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering allegations of misconduct, including Napoli's harm to its clients.

Carpenters' Pension Fund of Illinois v. Target Corp.

Docket: 18-1831

Opinion Date: April 10, 2020

Judge: Kobes

Areas of Law: Securities Law

Investors who purchase Target Corporation stock filed suit against Target and its executives, alleging that Target misled investors about problems in its Canadian stores. Investors' claims stemmed from Target's efforts to open stores in Canada. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, and denial of investors' motion for reconsideration and leave to amend. The court held that the district court did not err in determining that investors failed to plead fraud with particularity under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). In this case, none of the investors' allegations satisfied the PSLRA's mental state requirement and, for one allegation, its falsity requirement. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, because investors failed to allege that Target's executives knew they were making false or misleading statements to investors. Finally, the court held that, because investors' section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 claim failed, dismissal of their section 20(a) claim was also appropriate.