Latest 5 Cases: Pietsch v. Ward County (Civil Rights), United States v. Jones (Criminal Law), United States v. Thomason (Criminal Law)

How Not to Criticize the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf responds to three broad-based objections by Republican opponents to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021: (1) that the already-recovering economy doesn’t need stimulus; (2) that many of the Act’s provisions have nothing to do with COVID-19; and (3) that there will be waste, fraud, and abuse. Professor Dorf explains why these objections ring hollow and argues that while the Act is not perfect legislation and will likely face challenges in implementation, it is a much better option than anything Republicans were offering.

Read More

Pietsch v. Ward County

Docket: 20-1728

Opinion Date: March 16, 2021

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim, alleging that the County's right-of-way dedication ordinance violates their procedural due process rights. The court concluded that plaintiffs' due process and unconstitutional conditions claims are an impermissible attempt to recast a Takings claim. In this case, plaintiffs claim that the County's dedication rules could result in an exaction, which would require consideration of nexus and proportionality. However, the court concluded that this conflates takings and due process law. The court explained that plaintiffs claim a redundant remedy under the due process clause. The court concluded that the ordinance here promotes the government's interest in providing public roads and was not truly irrational. Furthermore, because plaintiffs received individualized notice and an opportunity to be heard on their variance applications, the County provided sufficient notice and opportunity for a hearing about their proposed uses.

United States v. Jones

Docket: 20-1301

Opinion Date: March 16, 2021

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 84-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. In this case, after a traffic stop of a vehicle defendant was driving, police found a handgun and PCP inside the vehicle. The court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the weapon in connection with another felony offense - possession of a controlled substance. Furthermore, there is no obvious error, and no reasonable likelihood that a more detailed explanation for the district court's sentencing decision would have resulted in a shorter term of imprisonment. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the mitigating factors and the district court had substantial latitude in weighing the relevant 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors.

United States v. Thomason

Dockets: 19-2537, 19-3702, 20-1230

Opinion Date: March 16, 2021

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for interstate stalking under 18 U.S.C. 2261A(1). The court concluded that the district court did not err in considering writings found in defendant's car in evaluating the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to provide just punishment, and to protect the public. In this case, the writings were evidence of defendant's intent to commit the charged offense and tended to show that he presented a danger to the victim and the community, and there was no First Amendment violation. The court also concluded that the prosecution did not engage in misconduct when it referred to defendant by masculine pronouns at sentencing after he asked to be referred to by gender-neutral pronouns. The court explained that defendant cites no authority for the proposition that litigants and courts must refer to defendants by their preferred pronouns, and the only cited authority is to the contrary. Furthermore, there is no showing that the use of pronouns affected the outcome of the proceeding. In regard to defendant's contention that the government disregarded his diagnosis of gender dysphoria, there was no prosecutorial misconduct. The record is clear that the district court sentenced defendant based on his conduct, not due to his gender or gender identity. The court further concluded that the government did not breach defendant's plea agreement by seeking restitution under both the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act and the Violence Against Women Act; the interstate stalking statute is not an unconstitutional overreach of the federal legislature; the court declined to address defendant's ineffective assistance claim; and the judge did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for recusal.

Transdev Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Dockets: 19-3570, 20-1057

Opinion Date: March 16, 2021

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Eighth Circuit denied Transdev's petition for review of the Board's order allowing a certain class of Transdev's workers to seek union representation where the Board determined that Transdev failed to show the workers were supervisors under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Transdev failed to prove road supervisors have the authority to discipline operators. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that Transdev failed to sufficiently prove road supervisors have the authority to discipline or effectively recommend discipline, and therefore Transdev failed to prove road supervisors are statutory supervisors on this basis. In regard to Transdev's alternative argument, the court found that the Board reasonably concluded that the one-time distribution of gift cards under the circumstances described by two road supervisors was insufficient to show that road supervisors have the authority to reward. Furthermore, the Board's decision that Transdev failed to show road supervisors responsibly direct other employees was supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the Board's decision here was supported by substantial evidence, and it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding that Transdev failed to show road supervisors were statutory supervisors, certifying the union, and finding that Transdev committed an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement of its order.

Swedberg v. Saul

Docket: 19-2916

Opinion Date: March 16, 2021

Judge: Grasz

Areas of Law: Public Benefits

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order upholding the Social Security Administration's denial of plaintiff's benefits claim, because substantial evidence supports the finding that the SSA has met its burden. The court concluded that the Vocational Expert relied on sufficient evidence, such as plaintiff's own testimony, when he formed his expert opinion. The court also concluded that the evidence supports the ALJ's finding that plaintiff can transfer her job skills to new sedentary positions, such as the suggested positions of order clerk, receptionist, or appointment clerk. Furthermore, there is sufficient evidence in the record to show that plaintiff possessed job skills that would transfer to other sedentary occupations.