Latest 6 Cases: Ahmed v. Weyker (Civil Rights), Braun v. Burke (Civil Rights), McElree v. City of Cedar Rapids (Civil Rights)

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Real Rigging of Georgia’s Election

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar explains why Georgia’s law allowing persons 75 years and older to get absentee ballots for all elections in an election cycle with a single request, while requiring younger voters to request absentee ballots separately for each election, is a clear violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Dean Amar acknowledges that timing may prevent this age discrimination from being redressed in 2020, but he calls upon legislatures and courts to understand the meaning of this amendment and prevent such invidious disparate treatment of voters in future years.

Read More

COVID Comes to Federal Death Row—It Is Time to Stop the Madness

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 the enhanced risk of COVID-19 infection in the federal death row in Terre Haute, not only among inmates but among those necessary to carry out executions. Professor Sarat calls upon the Trump administration and other officials to focus on saving, rather than taking, lives inside and outside prison.

Read More

Ahmed v. Weyker

Dockets: 18-3461, 18-3471

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: Stras

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant, a police officer, alleging civil rights claims related to her conduct during an investigation into an alleged interstate sex-trafficking scheme. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that defendant violated their Fourth Amendment rights by submitting a false affidavit causing their arrest. The district court concluded that plaintiffs may proceed on both a Bivens claim and a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Eighth Circuit concluded that this case is meaningfully different from a Bivens action in four ways: first, the sorts of actions being challenged here are different; second, defendant's role in the arrests was different; third, although the mechanism for inquiry is a closer call, there is still one meaningful difference; and fourth, proving these claims would require a different type of showing. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court to dismiss plaintiffs' Bivens claims and to determine whether their case can proceed under section 1983.

Braun v. Burke

Docket: 19-2961

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: Raymond W. Gruender

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

After Cassandra Braun was killed in a high-speed police pursuit of a speeding vehicle, her mother filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging constitutional violations against the officer involved in the accident and his supervisor. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that the officer believed he was responding to an emergency, triggering the intent-to-harm standard. In this case, plaintiff failed to argue, much less present any evidence, that the officer intended to harm anyone. Therefore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the officer on plaintiff's substantive due process claim because she failed to establish a constitutional violation. Furthermore, the district court also rightly granted summary judgment for the supervisor where plaintiff's failure-to-train-or-supervise claim requires an underlying constitutional violation.

McElree v. City of Cedar Rapids

Docket: 19-2323

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: Grasz

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

After officers from the Cedar Rapids Police Department shot and killed Jonathan Gossman during an altercation after stopping his vehicle to investigate possible drug crimes, Gossman's relatives filed suit against officers and the city, alleging various federal and state law claims under the United States Constitution, the Iowa Constitution, and Iowa tort law. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officers and the city, holding that, collectively, the officers' observations were enough to support the belief that criminal activity might have been afoot; the officers' first attempt to detain Gossman was also supported by reasonable suspicion; an officer's decision to release his canine to subdue the struggling Gossman and keep him from leaving was not unreasonable; police reasonably believed that Gossman posed a serious threat to their safety when he drew a gun; and the officers' use of deadly force was justified and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the district court properly disposed of the state law assault and false arrest claims.

Hill v. Rivera

Docket: 18-3756

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: William Duane Benton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Military Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 where petitioner was convicted in 2012, after trial by general court-martial, of rape committed in 1998. At the time of petitioner's conviction and direct appeals, there was no statute of limitations for prosecution of rape under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held for the first time that a five-year statute of limitations applied to rape in United States v. Mangahas, 77 M.J. 220, 222-24 (C.A.A.F. 2018). However, in United States v. Briggs, 2020 WL 7250099, at 2 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2020), the Supreme Court held that there is not a statute of limitations under the UCMJ for rapes committed between 1986 and 2006. Therefore, the court held that petitioner's conviction was not untimely.

United States v. Smith

Docket: 19-3528

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment for possession of controlled substances with the intent to distribute, and a consecutive term of 30 months imprisonment for violating the terms of a previously imposed term of supervised release. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence, holding that the district court did not procedurally err by finding that a consecutive term was mandatory under the Sentencing Guidelines. Rather, the record reflects that the district court treated the Guidelines as merely advisory and exercised its discretion in ordering consecutive sentences. In this case, the district court calculated the Guidelines range for defendant's new offense as 168 to 210 months imprisonment and noted the parties' plea agreement (and the agreed-to range of 144 to 216-months imprisonment).

Mohamed v. Barr

Docket: 19-3356

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions. The court did not find that "any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude" that al-Shabaab's presence in Somalia is materially different than existed in 2011 based on petitioner's evidence. Furthermore, the IJ did account for the emergence and growth of ISIS-Somalia in its determination, but ultimately determined that the "isolated references" in the record were insufficient to establish petitioner's claims. Finally, the IJ did consider petitioner's personal circumstances when determining whether the alleged changed country conditions were material. In this case, the IJ concluded that Westernized Somalis face no greater threat of harm than existed at the time of petitioner's prior proceedings in 2011, and petitioner failed to sufficiently show how his presence on the 2017 repatriation flight thrust him into "particular notoriety" thereby creating a greater risk of persecution.