8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: July 29, 2026

Civil Practice

Civil Action

Dismissal; District Court’s Discretion

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit with prejudice.

Where the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as plaintiff had ample opportunity to seek leave to amend before dismissal, the court affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

Ibrahim v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (MLW No. 85166/Case No. 25-2559 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Tostrud, J.

Civil Rights

1983

Detainees; Excessive Force

Defendants appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Plaintiffs were pretrial detainees at defendants’ correctional facility. They sued defendants under § 1983, alleging excessive force due to corrections officers unreasonably spraying them with mace on multiple occasions and denying water.

Where the district court failed to conduct an individualized qualified immunity assessment as to each alleged incident of excessive force, the court reversed claims where the record did not support finding that officers did not violate a plaintiff’s clearly established rights by deploying mace.

Judgment is affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part, and dismissed in part.

Jones v. City of St. Louis (MLW No. 85164/Case No. 24-1912 – 14 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Grasz, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Autrey, J.

Civil Rights Action

Dismissal; Basis for Reversal

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her civil rights action.

Where the record supported no basis for reversal, the court affirmed.

Judgment is affirmed.

Clayton v. U.S. Postal Service (MLW No. 85163/Case No. 25-2696 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Clark, J.

Contracts

Arbitration

Motion to Compel; Validity of Online Agreement

Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of its motion to stay pretrial deadlines and the merits trial date pending resolution of a motion to compel arbitration. The court previously reversed the denial of defendants’ motion to compel for trial on the question of whether aspects of defendant’s website indicated that plaintiffs intended to be bound by the terms of an agreement. On remand, the district court ordered discovery on arbitrability and merits in tandem and the filing of dispositive motions before trial on arbitrability.

Where defendant had merely complied with the district court’s directive to propose joint deadlines for the issue of arbitrability and the merits, it had not substantially engaged in litigation to waive its right to arbitrate, especially given defendant’s consistent invocation of its right to arbitrate. The district court erred in allowing merits discovery to proceed before resolving arbitrability violated the clear language of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

BSI Group LLC v. EZBanc Corp (MLW No. 85152/Case No. 25-1302 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Miller, J.

Dealer Agreement

Non-Compete Provision; Reasonable Scope

Plaintiffs appealed the adverse summary judgment in their case. Plaintiff Matt Goforth entered a dealer agreement with defendant that included a non-compete provision that also extended to Matt’s spouse Malinda. After Matt chose not to renew his agreement, defendant learned that plaintiffs were contemplating opening a competing business and initiated arbitration to enforce the non-compete. After the arbitration enforced the provision, plaintiffs filed another arbitration asserting antitrust violations, which the arbitrator dismissed because they should have been brought in the prior arbitration. Plaintiffs then filed the present action to assert the antitrust violations, but the district court agreed that they were compulsory counterclaims.

Where defendant’s first arbitration constituted an overt act that gave rise to an antitrust cause of action, plaintiffs could have brought their antitrust claims in the first arbitration, especially where they sought their legal costs from that first arbitration as an antitrust in the second arbitration.

Judgment is affirmed.

Goforth v. Transform Holdco, LLC (MLW No. 85173/Case No. 25-2306 – 12 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Harpool, J.

Software License

Breach; Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff appealed the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff licensed its software to defendant. After defendant developed its own, similar software, plaintiff filed suit for breach of license and misappropriation of trade secrets and moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the motion, finding that plaintiff had failed to show irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief.

Where plaintiff’s potential financial harms were compensable with monetary damages and where its potential reputational damage was too speculative, the district court correctly found that plaintiff had failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm without injunctive relief.

Judgment is affirmed.

Revenue Management Solutions, LLC v. Commerce Bank (MLW No. 85160/Case No. 25-3159 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Benton, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Bough, J.

Criminal Law

Carjacking

Criminal History Increase; Retroactive Guidelines Amendment

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. Defendant pleaded guilty to carjacking offenses. The district court increased his criminal history points because he committed the offense while under another sentence. However, the Sentencing Guidelines were amended to reduce the effect of “status points,” so defendant moved for a sentence reduction based on this retroactive change. The district court denied the motion, citing defendant’s prison disciplinary record and the nature of his underlying offense.

Where the district court appropriately considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion from reducing a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence to a new bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence, the court affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Spotted Elk (MLW No. 85165/Case No. 24-3158 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Schreier, J.

Drug Offenses

Appeal Waiver; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

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

Where the appeal waiver was valid and enforceable, the court was constrained to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal is dismissed.

U.S. v. Elburki (MLW No. 85153/Case No. 25-356 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Ketchmark, J.

Drug Offenses

Below-Guidelines Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the below-Guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a drug offense, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Where the district court appropriately considered the statutory sentencing factors, there was no abuse of discretion in not varying downward further after imposing a below-Guidelines sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Olguin (MLW No. 85168/Case No. 25-3306 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Ebinger, J.

Drug Offenses

Explanation of Sentencing Decision; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a drug offense, arguing that the district court failed to explain his sentence.

Where the district court stated that it had considered the statutory sentencing factors and defendant’s mitigating arguments, there was no abuse of sentencing discretion in imposing a within-Guidelines sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Urieta-Barba (MLW No. 85170/Case No. 25-3323 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Buescher, J.

Drug User in Possession of Firearm

Motion to Dismiss Indictment; Constitutional Challenge

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a drug user in possession of a firearm, contesting the denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment on grounds that the statute of offense violated the Second Amendment on its face and as applied and was unconstitutionally vague both facially and as applied.

Where there was a temporal nexus between drug use and gun possession, the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, but the law was unsettled as to whether barring firearms possession to marijuana users was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

U.S. v. Striplin (MLW No. 85171/Case No. 24-2969 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Ketchmark, J.

Failure to Register as Sex Offender

Uncontrollable Circumstances Defense; Sufficiency of Evidence

Defendant appealed his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. Defendant had been convicted in Minnesota state court for a sex offense and was subject to sex offender registration. After his release, defendant expressed interest in moving to North or South Dakota for employment. However, defendant stopped meeting with his probation officer and left for North and South Dakota to live with his parents, but failed to register there. Defendant was found in South Dakota two years later and arrested for failure to register. At trial, defendant sought to assert an uncontrollable circumstances defense, but the district court concluded that defendant had failed to provide concrete evidence of harassment or threats that caused him to leave Minnesota.

Where defendant was allowed to provide supporting testimony for his uncontrollable circumstances defense, the district court correctly determined that defendant failed to establish an adequate basis for the defense where he took no steps to comply with his sex offender registration requirements in the face of alleged threats or harassment.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Longie (MLW No. 85172/Case No. 24-3302 – 20 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Loken, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Kornmann, J.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Above-Guidelines Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the above-Guidelines sentence imposed following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that the district court failed to give sufficient weight to certain mitigating factors.

Where the district court varied upward due to the underrepresentation of the seriousness of defendant’s criminal history, there was no abuse of discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Whitesell (MLW No. 85156/Case No. 25-1726 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Ketchmark, J.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Juvenile Delinquency Act; Constitutional Challenge

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for RICO conspiracy and being a felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that a 2006 homicide conviction when he was fourteen years old could not count as an overt act under RICO. Defendant challenged the denial of his pretrial motions under the Juvenile Delinquency Act and his motions to dismiss his charges as unconstitutional.

Where there was evidence of defendant’s continued participation in the gang after reaching the age of majority, that conduct constituted ratification of the charged offenses committed during his minority.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Bogan (MLW No. 85175/Case No. 25-3084 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Locher, J.

Felon in Possession of Firearm

Motion to Dismiss; Constitutional Challenge

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment as unconstitutional.

Where defendant’s constitutional challenges were foreclosed by circuit precedent, the court affirmed defendant’s conviction.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Higgins (MLW No. 85174/Case No. 25-2817 – 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

Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence; Mitigating Factors

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that the district court failed to consider the fact that he possessed a firearm because he had recently been shot, remained in danger and wanted to protect himself and his family.

Where the record showed that defendant also supplied firearms to others, including persons prohibited from possessing them, and he initially denied possessing any firearms, the district court properly weighed defendant’s asserted mitigating factor.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Hoover (MLW No. 85154/Case No. 24-2985 – 4 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Firearm Offenses

Bottom-of-Guidelines Sentence; Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant appealed the bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence imposed following his conviction for an ammunition offense, challenging the denial of a downward variance and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Where the district court appropriately considered the statutory sentencing factors, the court found no abuse of discretion in declining to vary downward or in its imposition of sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Castillo (MLW No. 85167/Case No. 25-3144 – 2 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, Bazis, J.

Firearm Offenses

Within-Guidelines Sentence; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of the bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence imposed following her conviction for firearms offense, challenging the characterization of her decision to leave the district with pending charges.

Where the record supported the district court’s finding that defendant’s decision to leave the district was motivated, at least in part, by her desire to evade responsibility, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose a below-Guidelines sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Henderson (MLW No. 85158/Case No. 25-2535 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Williams, J.

Making False Statements in Acquisition of Firearm

Procedural Errors; Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant challenged the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to making false statements in the acquisition of a firearm.

Where defendant did not identify any factually erroneous finding relied upon by the district court and where it did not abuse its discretion in heavily weighing the fact that defendant was distributing firearms without a license, the court affirmed defendant’s sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Berry (MLW No. 85159/Case No. 25-2674 – 6 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Brooks, J.

Employer-Employee

FMLA Interference

Discrimination; Wrongful Termination

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, his former employer. Plaintiff sued defendant after its terminated his employment while he was on FMLA leave, alleging unlawful discrimination and FMLA interference.

Where defendant provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff as part of a reduction-in-workforce in which a more senior employee was retained instead of plaintiff, plaintiff’s claims failed where he could not show that defendant’s proffered explanation was a pretext for discrimination.

Judgment is affirmed.

Knight v. Cambria Company, LLC (MLW No. 85176/Case No. 25-3464 –16 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Brasel, J.

Sex Discrimination

Retaliation; Adverse Summary Judgment

Plaintiff appealed the adverse summary judgment in her Title VII and Michigan Civil Rights Act action. Plaintiff sued defendant, her former employer, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation after a series of disputes with co-workers on various projects that plaintiff was assigned to. Defendant investigated plaintiff’s claims but did not substantiate any allegation of discrimination. Rather than accept reassignment, plaintiff chose to resign. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, finding that plaintiff’s communications to supervisors did not mention discrimination or imply that plaintiff was complaining about sex discrimination.

Where plaintiff’s complaint did not allege any facts giving rise to an inference of sex discrimination, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for defendant.

Judgment is affirmed.

Joseph v. Thomas-Grace Construction Inc. (MLW No. 85162/Case No. 25-2568 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Doty, J.

Immigration

Asylum

Withholding of Removal; Fear of Persecution

Petitioner sought review of an order of the BIA dismissing his appeal of an IJ’s order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner argued that the IJ erred in finding that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution due to his familial relationship and the unwillingness or inability of his home government to protect him.

Where the BIA had invoked the waiver rule in dismissing petitioner’s appeal, his claims in his petition were not unexhausted.

Petition is denied.

Orellana v. Blanche (MLW No. 85155/Case No. 25-1604 – 3 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Insurance

Property Insurance

Hail Damage; Cosmetic Damage Exclusion

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to defendant, its property insurer. Plaintiff filed suit after roofs of several of its properties suffered hail damage. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant, ruling that the roof damage fell within the scope of the policy exclusion for cosmetic damage.

Where plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the hail damage weakened the roofs’ ability to resist wind or bear snow loads, then the damage caused the roofs to be unable to function to the same extent as before the damage, thus triggering coverage under the policy language.

Loken, J., dissenting: “When there is policy language that has been widely adopted for a type of coverage or exclusion, and courts in various jurisdictions have with substantial uniformity construed that language in a particular manner, as in this case, it is prudent for a federal court exercising its diversity jurisdiction to follow those precedents. In my view, that is the proper path to follow in this case and therefore I would affirm the well-reasoned judgment of the district court in full.”

Judgment is vacated and remanded.

Cannon Falls Area Schools v. The Hanover American Insurance Company (MLW No. 85169/Case No. 25-3315 – 8 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Menendez, J.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/07/253315P.pdf

Real Property

Agricultural Land Lease

Breach; Eviction

Defendant appealed the district court’s grant of plaintiff’s request for an injunction. Plaintiff leased forage land from defendant for the cows in plaintiff’s dairy. Plaintiff later sued defendant for breach of the lease. Defendant counterclaimed for breach and threatened to pursue eviction proceedings against plaintiff. The district court granted plaintiff’s motion to enjoin defendant from pursuing its threat to evict plaintiff.

Where defendant had failed to raise its procedural objections to the district court and where plaintiff had demonstrated a likelihood of success in proving that it had the right to purchase the land from defendant, the district court did not err in issuing a preliminary objection.

Judgment is affirmed.

La Belle Dairy, LLC v. Sharpe Holdings, Inc. (MLW No. 85157/Case No. 25-1803 – 14 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Arnold, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Autrey, J.

Lake Ramp Construction

Post-Construction Approval; ADA Violation

Plaintiffs appealed the adverse summary judgment. Plaintiffs owned a lakefront home and constructed a concrete ramp from their property to the lake’s highwater mark, then sought county approval for the construction. After the county denied a conditional use permit, plaintiffs filed the present action alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the county, ruling that plaintiffs missed their opportunity to request an accommodation by constructing the ramp without approval.

Where plaintiffs knew of the county’s permit approval process yet proceeded with an unlawful construction, only subsequently identifying a disability when seeking a post-construction permit, the district court correctly determined that plaintiffs failed to seek an accommodation at the appropriate time or properly pursue a post-construction permit.

Judgment is affirmed.

Audette v. Lake of the Woods County (MLW No. 85161/Case No. 25-2472 – 14 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Provinzino, J.