Civil Rights Law News - U.S. Eighth Circuit
U.S. Eighth Circuit - The FindLaw 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

Ferguson is burning. The first night's casualties are in: dozens of burned and looted businesses in Ferguson, two police cruisers burned, bottles and rocks tossed at police officers and reporters alike, riots, sixty-one arrests, and more National Guard troops on the way, reports CNN and The New York Times.

And the riots weren't confined to Ferguson: reports of riots and looting popped up in even the most far away places, like Oakland, California, where protestors shut down the I-580 freeway, looted, and set fires as well, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

Why? The disputed tale of the death of Michael Brown, alternatively portrayed as an aggressor who attacked a police officer or as the victim of an execution-style murder. After an unusual grand jury featuring "all the evidence" and testimony from Office Darren Wilson, there is no indictment -- only pain, protests, riots, and unanswered questions.

Last week, a federal district court in Missouri joined a chorus of state courts in striking down the state's ban on gay marriage. In doing so, that court set aside precedent from 2006 that many regarded as a controlling opinion on same-sex marriage bans: Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, an Eighth Circuit opinion upholding Nebraska's ban.

Judge Ortrie D. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri distinguished Bruning by classifying it as a political right-of-access case, rather than a case about a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

Was he right? And what impact does Bruning have today, post-Windsor?

And the Feds weigh in!

Two days ago, a state court judge held that Missouri's ban on gay marriages performed in the state was unconstitutional. A month before that, a second state judge held that the state's refusal to recognize out-of-state marriages was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, we were wondering what was happening with the federal case.

The opinion was being proofread, apparently. Today, Judge Ortrie D. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri invalidated that state's law banning same-sex marriage, saying, quite interestingly, that it amounted to gender-based discrimination.

Like dominos.

Last month, a state court in Kansas City held that the state of Missouri had to recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Earlier this week, a state court in St. Louis held that the state couldn't ban in-state gay marriages. The state declined to appeal the former case, but will appeal the latter case to the Missouri Supreme Court in order to get a statewide ruling.

Meantime, a federal case is pending in Jefferson City and the Eighth Circuit is one of the few that haven't addressed same-sex marriage since Windsor. Same-sex marriage definitely seems like a "when" rather than an "if" in this great state, but the legal path in Missouri certainly is interesting.

North Dakota has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. Earlier this year, a federal judge said the law -- which prohibits abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be heard, which can be as soon as six weeks after conception -- was unconstitutional.

The state supreme court last week dealt with another provision of the law, this one outlawing non-surgical abortion by medication. The court's procedure requires four of the five justices to agree in order to rule a statute unconstitutional, but only three agreed. Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle and Justice Dale Sandstrom said the law was constitutional.

It's getting hard to keep track of all the states that introduced laws requiring voters to produce state-issued photo IDs in order to vote. You can take Arkansas off the list (oh, but you'll need to add it to the list of voter ID cases that could end up at the U.S. Supreme Court -- like the ones out of Texas, Ohio, Wisconsin, and North Carolina).

On Wednesday, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a lower court's determination that Act 595, passed in 2013, was unconstitutional.

Add Missouri to the list of states the U.S. Supreme Court definitely doesn't won't take same sex marriage petitions from. Last week, delivering on its promise of a quick ruling, a Missouri trial court declared Missouri's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Like many other same-sex marriage cases, the issue arose because same-sex Missouri residents had tied the knot in other jurisdictions where same gay marriage was legal.

Show Me State? More like Slow Me State, right?

The first of three challenges to Missouri's ban on same-sex marriages was argued in court today, with the judge promising a quick ruling. Today's case, in state court, challenged the state's refusal to recognize gay marriages from out of state, while a second state court case will challenge the ban on in-state marriages. A federal case is also pending.

As was the case in many other states' disputes, the ACLU argued equal protection, while the state argued for state sovereignty.

Here's one way to solve the problems with Hobby Lobby: All the health insurance companies in the country can agree that they won't sell any insurance policy that doesn't contain contraceptive coverage. That's sort of what happened in Annex Medical v. Burwell.

Annex is a small corporation with 16 full-time employees. Its controlling shareholder, Stuart Lind, has a religious objection to providing contraception to female employees as part of a health insurance plan. He was shocked -- shocked! -- to find out that the Blue Cross plan he selected for his employees contained contraceptive coverage. He called Blue Cross to see if they could exclude that coverage, but Blue Cross refused. In fact, no insurer Lind contacted would exclude contraceptive coverage.

My home state is burning and it is a disturbing sight to behold. Protestors, mad about the death of an unarmed teenager, are tearing down their own neighborhood. Police officers, defending one of their own, are hiding the officer's identify and responding in a militaristic fashion against unarmed citizens and reporters.

Let's be very clear here, we're not taking a side, but with so many videos and accounts of seemingly unconstitutional acts by local law enforcement, lawyers may be wondering along with us: how would one defend some of these violations?