8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: May 13, 2026

Listen to this article

Administrative

Equal Broadband Access

Digital Discrimination Rule; Regulatory Challenge

A group of telecommunications and broadband industry groups petitioned for review of the final rule issued by the FCC pursuant to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which required equal access to broadband services within a provider’s service area. In its final rule, the FCC adopted two theories of liability: disparate treatment and disparate impact. The industry petitioners sought to challenge the disparate impact portion of the rule, arguing that it covered entities other than internet service providers and that the FCC lacked authority to adopt a burden-shifting framework. A coalition of public interest groups also challenged the rule, arguing that it did not sufficiently combat digital discrimination.

Where the IIJA’s text only referred to broadband providers and service subscribers, the FCC’s rule exceeded the scope of authority conferred by the statute by declining to exclude any other parties from the scope of the rule.

Petitions are granted in part and denied in part.

Minnesota Telecom Alliance v. Federal Communications Commission (MLW No. 84729/Case No. 24-1179, 24-1183, 24-1301, 24-1304, 24-1309, 24-1315, 24-1317, 24-1319, 24-1354, 24-1362, 24-1364, 24-1376, 24-1378, 24-1411, 24-1444, & 24-1509 – 49 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Petition for review of an order of the Federal Communications Commission.

Civil Rights

§1983

Excessive Force; Qualified Immunity

Defendants appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff filed suit under §1983, claiming due process violations due to defendants’ alleged excessive force against plaintiff while he was in custody, including the deployment of a taser and pepper spray projectiles and striking him with closed fists.

Although use of a taser against an arrestee who was refusing to comply with orders did not violate a clearly established right, the other incidents of force were not entitled to qualified immunity where the circumstances did not clearly demonstrate that plaintiff posed a threat to officers.

Judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Bolin v. Wilkins (MLW No. 84736/Case No. 24-3491 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Brooks, J.

Contracts

Breach of Real Estate Development

Enforcement of Judgment; Motion to Depose Former Counsel

Plaintiffs moved for leave to depose their former counsel in aid of execution of a judgment they obtained in their breach of contract action. Plaintiffs sought to depose counsel about its prior lawsuit against third-party defendant and her children for allegedly receiving fraudulent conveyances from the judgment debtor. The motion followed a prior order barring further discovery into third-party defendant’s finances absent new evidence of fraudulent or voidable transactions. The district court denied the motion and held them liable for third-party defendant’s legal fees and costs incurred in responding to the motion.

Where the aim of plaintiffs’ motion was ultimately to conduct discovery into third-party defendant’s finances, the district court did not err in denying their request to depose counsel to find new evidence to facilitate further discovery into third-party defendant.

Judgment is affirmed.

Lupe Development Partners, LLC v. Baird (MLW No. 84737/Case No. 25-1566 – 15 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Magnuson, J.

Criminal Law

Drug Distribution

Excessive Sentence; Abuse of Discretion

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for drug distribution and wire fraud, arguing that it was unreasonably high.

Where the district court declined to vary downward further due to concerns that a lower sentence would undermine the seriousness of defendant’s offense, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Austin (MLW No. 84746/Case No. 24-3245 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Drug Offense

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.

Where the appeal waiver was valid and enforceable against defendant’s challenge, the court rejected the appeal.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Choal (MLW No. 84734/Case No. 25-2921 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Schulte, J.

Drug Offense

Career Offender Designation; Predicate Offense

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug offenses, challenging the use of a prior assault offense as a predicate for his career offender designation because the assault conviction arose from a nolo contendere plea.

Where defendant’s argument was foreclosed by circuit precedent, the court affirmed defendant’s sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Holt (MLW No. 84755/Case No. 24-2346 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Hovland, J.

Drug Offense

Downward Variance; Authority to Vary from Guidelines

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to drug distribution near a playground, after the district court denied a downward variance. Defendant argued that the district court erred in failing to recognize its authority to vary from the Guidelines range.

Where the district court expressly recognized that it could vary from the Guidelines and stated that it chose not to do so, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Evilsizer (MLW No. 84761/Case No. 25-2598 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Drug Offense

Enhanced Mandatory Minimums; Sixth Amendment

The government appealed defendant’s sentences for drug conspiracy and distribution, after the district court declined to impose the enhanced mandatory minimum sentences for each conviction when it found that doing so would violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights or statutory law.

Where the district court correctly determined that it could not find the fact of a prior conviction without a jury and where the government was not entitled to the empanelment of a jury following the trial to conviction, the district court did not err in declining to impose the enhanced mandatory minimum.

Stras, J., dissenting: “The statute, after all, categorically eliminates “increased punishment by reason of one or more prior convictions, unless” it comes after a “hearing . . . before the court without a jury.” It is a condition precedent, meaning the original jury can no more make the findings than a later-summoned one could. The statute forbids what the Constitution requires. Where the court sees a “catch-22” in the requirement of a “Trial . . . by Jury,” I see the “judicial Power” to summon one.”

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Evans (MLW No. 84758/Case No. 25-1181 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Drug Offense

Obstruction of Justice Enhancement; Witness Tampering

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for drug offenses. Defendant was arrested following a traffic stop in which police discovered a backpack containing drugs during an inventory search. The driver entered a plea deal in exchange for testifying against defendant, claiming that the backpack was his. She also testified that defendant told her before a pretrial hearing that she “should have never pointed that backpack towards” him. The district court imposed an obstruction of justice enhancement, concluding that defendant had attempted to threaten the driver.

Where defendant’s statement was capable of being interpreted as either a threat or an expression of disappointment, and where the driver testified that she felt threatened, the district court’s determination was not clearly erroneous.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Salinas (MLW No. 84739/Case No. 25-2916 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Kornmann, J.

Drug Offense

Supervised Release; Substance Abuse Testing

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following his conviction for a drug offense, challenging the drug testing condition of his supervised release as overbroad because he had no documented substance abuse.

Where the decision to impose substance abuse testing as a condition of supervised release from a drug conviction did not constitute plain error, the court affirmed the sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Pineda-Zarao (MLW No. 84750/Case No. 25-1856 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Kays, J.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Motion to Suppress; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing a stolen firearm. Defendant’s conviction stemmed from a home invasion in which defendant shot and killed the intruder. He told police that he had shot the intruder in self-defense using a firearm in his home. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress his statement, arguing that it violated his Fifth Amendment right. On appeal, defendant also challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Where defendant’s statements to police were not made in the context of a custodial interrogation, there was no requirement for Miranda warnings and thus defendant voluntarily made his statements.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Hayes (MLW No. 84748/Case No. 25-1649 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Strand, J.

Firearm Offense

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Obstruction of Justice Enhancement

Defendants appealed the sentences imposed after they pled guilty to firearms offenses. Defendants challenged the substantive reasonableness of their sentences and also argued that the district court improperly imposed an obstruction of justice enhancement and denied an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.

Where the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors and where the record showed that defendant sought to destroy his cellphone even though he was not actively under investigation, the court upheld defendants’ sentences.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Propst (MLW No. 84757/Case No. 24-3520 & 25-1168 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Illegal Reentry

Within-Guidelines Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the within-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry

Where the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant, the court upheld the sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Rojas (MLW No. 84754/Case No. 25-3427 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Locher, J.

Racketeering

Firearm Offense; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to racketeering and firearm offenses.

Where the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, the court found the sentence presumptively reasonable.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Robinson (MLW No. 84756/Case No. 24-3500 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Locher, J.

Revocation of Supervised Release

Above-Guidelines Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the above-Guidelines sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Where the district court adequately considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not give significant weight to any improper factor, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Crissler (MLW No. 84733/Case No. 25-1247 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Welte, J.

Sentence Reduction

Guidelines Amendment; Sentencing Discretion

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. Although the district court found defendant eligible for a reduction due to an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, it declined to reduce his sentence, citing defendant’s extensive criminal and prison disciplinary history.

Where the district court appropriately weighed the circumstances of defendant’s case, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion to deny a sentence reduction.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Warrior (MLW No. 84730/Case No. 24-3055 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Schreier, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Conditions of Release

Defendant appealed the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the reimposition of three conditions of supervised release as unconstitutional and a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary.

Where defendant was barred from challenging the reimposition of conditions of supervised release following a revocation, the court concluded that defendant’s argument was waived.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Wolfe (MLW No. 84752/Case No. 25-2862 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Schreier, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.

Where the district court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors, the court upheld the revocation sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Curtman (MLW No. 84735/Case No. 25-3135 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Wimes, J.

Supervised Release

Revocation; Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendant appealed the revocation of his supervised release, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s finding that he committed two new law violations.

Where the district court credited a law enforcement officer’s testimony, based on their training and experience, about defendant’s visible signs of intoxication and where circumstantial evidence indicated that defendant was the driver of the vehicle that fled from police, there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s findings.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Reed (MLW No. 84751/Case No. 25-2008 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Locher, J.

Transporting a Minor

Sufficiency of Evidence; Intent to Engage in Prostitution

Defendant appealed her conviction for transporting a minor in interstate commerce for prostitution, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she transported the victim with the intent for the victim to engage in prostitution.

Where the evidence included defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s past prostitution activities and the messages they exchanged about making money and commercial sex acts, the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one reason for defendant transporting the victim was for prostitution.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Robinson (MLW No. 84732/Case No. 25-1223 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Buescher, J.

Employer-Employee

Retirement Benefits

ERISA Violations; Article III Standing

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his class action alleging that defendants’ handling of forfeited 401(k) funds violated ERISA. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that plaintiff lacked Article III standing

Where plaintiff failed to allege any injury to his retirement account stemming from the use of forfeited funds, he could not establish Article III standing, but the court remanded for dismissal of the case without prejudice.

Judgment is affirmed and remanded.

Matula v. Wells Fargo & Company (MLW No. 84760/Case No. 25-2441 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Tunheim, J.

Immigration

Asylum

Withholding of Removal; Cognizable Particular Social Group

Petitioner petitioned for review of an order of the BIA that dismissed her appeal of the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

Where petitioner failed to exhaust her challenge to the determination that she did not demonstrate that she suffered any harm due to her cognizable social group, the wavier of that claim was dispositive of her appeal.

Petition is denied.

Sanchez-Rivera v. Blanche (MLW No. 84738/Case No. 25-2440 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Asylum

Withholding of Removal; Credibility Determination

Petitioner sought review of the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Where the immigration judge found petitioner not credible regarding her allegations of abuse against her husband, her parents, and co-workers at her parents’ bakery, given indicia of unreliability in supporting affidavits, the IJ reasonably concluded that petitioner had failed to carry her burden of proof.

Petition is denied.

De Hernande v. Blanche (MLW No. 84759/Case No. 25-1298 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Cancellation of Removal

Extreme Hardship; Substantial Evidence

Petitioner sought review of the BIA’s decision to affirm the denial of her application for cancellation of removal, challenging the determination that she failed to show that her removal would result in exceptional hardship to her U.S. citizen children.

Where petitioner failed to show that any hardship experienced by her children from her removal would be different from that normally expected to result from removal, there was substantial evidence to support the BIA’s determination.

Petition is denied.

Perez v. Blanche (MLW No. 84747/Case No. 25-1094 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Insurance

Accidental Death and Dismemberment

Exclusion; Contributing Factors to Death

Plaintiff appealed the adverse judgment in her ERISA action against defendant. Plaintiff filed an accidental death and dismemberment benefits claim under her husband’s ERISA plan after he passed away. Defendant, the plan administrator, denied the claim after finding that the death was not caused solely by an accident but rather that plaintiff’s husband’s blood thinner medication contributed to his death.

Where plaintiff failed to contradict defendant’s evidence that her husband’s blood thinner medication contributed to him developing a fatal hematoma, defendants reasonably denied plaintiff’s claim based on its determination that the accident was not the sole cause of plaintiff’s husband’s death.

Judgment is affirmed.

Beard v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (MLW No. 84753/Case No. 25-2950 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J.

Duty to Indemnify

Consent Judgment; Policy Exclusion

Defendants appealed the adverse summary judgment in the declaratory judgment action filed by plaintiff to resolve its duty to indemnify its insured for a consent judgment in favor of defendants.

Where plaintiff’s policy excluded coverage for claims arising from the failure to pay money, plaintiff owed no duty to indemnify its insured’s failure to pay the consent judgment.

Judgment is affirmed.

United States Liability Insurance Company v. Stone County Insurance Agency Inc. (MLW No. 84749/Case No. 25-1699 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Baker, J.

Long-Term Care Policy

Guaranteed Issue

Existing Loss Exclusion

Plaintiff appealed the adverse summary judgment in her breach of insurance contract action. Plaintiff lost the use of her arms and legs in an accident 40 years prior and needed assistance with bathing, dressing and eating. However, she was able to work as a speech therapist with a state education agency. The agency offered its employees a guaranteed-issue long-term care policy that contained an exclusion for “existing loss.” Although plaintiff contacted defendant to learn more about the exclusion, she did not fully disclose the extent of her physical condition. When working became too difficult, she filed a claim with defendant, which denied coverage under the existing loss provision because her physical limitations existed on the day she enrolled.

Where plaintiff’s physical limitations had arisen before the effective date of coverage, state law allowed defendant to enforce its existing loss provision to bar coverage for care that plaintiff was already receiving when she signed up for coverage.

Judgment is affirmed.

Child v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (MLW No. 84745/Case No. 24-2347 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Stras, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Strand, J.

Torts

Opioid Epidemic

PBM Liability; Removal to Federal Court

Defendants appealed the district court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion to remand back to state court. Plaintiff sued defendants in Arkansas court, seeking to hold them liable for their alleged role facilitating the opioid epidemic. Defendants removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute.

Where defendants’ alleged actions occurred in the scope of their role as middlemen delivering federal healthcare benefits to beneficiaries, defendants successfully pled that they had acted as federal officers.

Judgment is reversed.

Griffin v. Optum, Inc. (MLW No. 84731/Case No. 25-1165 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Colloton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Wilson, J.