U.S. Eighth Circuit

A recent decision in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals may have passed under your radar, but this ruling is incredibly significant. It involves vote dilution and could shape the fabric of democracy that is so foundational to the United States. But the court didn't actually rule on anything about…

Ronald Calzone drives cattle, not trucks, for a living. But a Missouri police officer pulled him over for driving a truck because the officer thought he was violating long-haul vehicle laws. The officer searched the vehicle and then let him go because it turned out Calzone was a farmer, not a commercial driver. Calzone sued in Calzone v. Koster, but a judge said the stop-and-search was justified to protect the public. Calzone said something like "bull," and appealed.

Last year, Judge Ralph Erickson ordered a new sentencing phase in the case, finding that several pieces of evidence and his attorney's failure to utilize the insanity defense had violated Rodriguez's constitutional rights.

After a federal district court upheld the University of Minnesota's decision to move guest speaker Ben Shapiro from an on-campus to an off-campus venue because she found that school had legitimate safety concerns, the Eighth Circuit dismissed conservative student groups' appeal, ruling that their constitutional claims were moot after the school replaced the challenged campus events policy.

It's usually not a good idea to curse at police, but it is still a fundamental right. The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said so in a case from Arkansas. As a cop was citing one driver, another motorist passed by and gave the officer an earful. That led to an arrest for disorderly conduct in Thurairajah v. City of Fort Smith. After an unpleasant tour of the local slammer, the motorist was out and in no mood to let it go. He fought the law, and the Constitution won.

A recently filed wage-suppression class action against the burger franchiser Carl's Jr. claims that the company has conspired to suppress the wages of their restaurant managers and shift-leaders. The gist of the lawsuit alleges that the agreements entered into by the franchisees contain no-hire and non-solicitation agreements which prevents the managers from being able to compete in the marketplace for their services.