David Stras On Abortion

Stras Opposed Abortion Rights

Stras Wrote A Dissent Calling For Missouri’s Restrictive Abortion Law To Go Into Effect

Stras Wrote A Dissent Calling To Uphold A Restrictive Missouri Abortion Law. According to the Kansas City Star, “A federal appeals court has upheld the temporary blocking of Missouri’s restrictive 2019 abortion law from going into effect as a lawsuit makes its way through the legal system. The law prohibits abortion after 8 weeks of pregnancy and includes a series of triggers that ban abortion at 14, 18 and 20 weeks if the 8-week ban is overturned. And it prohibits abortions for the reason of a fetus’s race, sex or solely for the diagnosis of Down syndrome or other conditions that might be fatal. There is no exception for victims of rape or incest […] Stras dissented over the issue of the reason ban. […] Stras wrote in a dissenting opinion that wasn’t enough to prove abortion providers would be harmed by the reason ban. [Kansas City Star, 6/9/21]

The Law Banned Abortions After Eight Weeks Of Pregnancy And Banned All Abortions In Which The Woman Sought An Abortion Due To A Potential Down Syndrome Diagnosis

2019: Missouri Passed A Law That Banned All Abortions Conducted After Eight Weeks Of Pregnancy, And It Banned All Abortions Where A Provider Knows That A Woman Is Seeking An Abortion Because Of A Potential Down Syndrome Diagnosis. According to the Kansas City Star, “A federal appeals court has upheld the temporary blocking of Missouri’s restrictive 2019 abortion law from going into effect as a lawsuit makes its way through the legal system. The law prohibits abortion after 8 weeks of pregnancy and includes a series of triggers that ban abortion at 14, 18 and 20 weeks if the 8-week ban is overturned. And it prohibits abortions for the reason of a fetus’s race, sex or solely for the diagnosis of Down syndrome or other conditions that might be fatal. There is no exception for victims of rape or incest. [Kansas City Star, 6/9/21]

Stras Ruled To Uphold A Law That Required Providers To Give Patients An Anti-Abortion Booklet And Perform An Ultrasound Before An Abortion

Stras Ruled That A Missouri Law That Required Physicians To Give Patients An Anti-Abortion Booklet And Perform An Ultrasound Before An Abortion Did Not Violate The First Amendment. According to Courthouse News Services, “Missouri’s law requiring physicians to give women a pro-life booklet and perform an ultrasound before an abortion does not infringe on a Satanist’s religious freedom, the Eighth Circuit ruled Tuesday. […] ‘Doe makes no argument, however, that the informed-consent law is anything other than ‘neutral’ and ‘generally applicable,’’ U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras wrote for a three-judge panel. ‘In these circumstances, it must only survive rational-basis review, which requires it to be ‘rationally related to a legitimate government interest.’ To the extent Doe argues that the certification requirement lacks a rational basis, we disagree.’” [Courthouse News Services, 6/9/20]

• A Suit Was Filed By A Judy Doe That Claimed Missouri’s Definition Of Life Beginning At Conception Violated The Establishment And Free Exercise Clauses Of The First Amendment. According to Courthouse News Services, “Judy Doe, a member of the Satanic Temple, filed a lawsuit in February 2018 claiming that the state’s definition of life beginning at conception violates the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.[…] Doe had argued in her complaint that an unborn child that is not viable, as defined by Missouri law, is just tissue under her religious beliefs. She said she ‘makes decisions regarding her health based on the best scientific understanding of the world, even if the science does not comport with the religious or political beliefs of others.’” [Courthouse News Services, 6/9/20]

David Stras On Sexual Assault

Stras Dissented From An Opinion Allowing Experts To Explain Sexual Assault Victims’ Behavior 

The Minnesota Supreme Court Ruled That State Courts Could Allow Experts To Testify As To Why Sexual Assault Victims Delayed Reporting Or Acted In Other Illogical Ways

The Minnesota Supreme Court Ruled That Courts Could Allow Experts To Explain To Juries Why Sexual Assault Victims Delayed Reporting Assaults Or Acted In Other Illogical Ways. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, “In a decision prosecutors say will make it easier to convict rapists, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that state courts can allow experts to explain to juries why victims sometimes delay reporting the crime or otherwise act in ways that might cast doubt on their stories.” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 3/24/11]

Prosecutors Said The Decision Would Make It Easier To Convict Rapists

Prosecutors Said The State Supreme Court’s Decision Would Make It Easier To Convict Rapists. According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, “In a decision prosecutors say will make it easier to convict rapists, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that state courts can allow experts to explain to juries why victims sometimes delay reporting the crime or otherwise act in ways that might cast doubt on their stories.” [Minnesota Star Tribune, 3/24/11]

Stras Wrote The Dissent To The Ruling

Stras Dissented From The Majority Opinion. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, “In a dissent to this week’s ruling, Justice David Stras wrote that prosecutors failed to show that the lower court’s exclusion of the expert testimony would have a ‘critical impact’ on the outcome of the trial.” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 3/24/11]

David Stras On LGBTQ Rights

Stras Wrote An Opinion Allowing Videographers To Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples

Stras Wrote An Opinion Allowing Wedding Videographers To Refuse To Film Same-Sex Weddings

Filmmakers Sued Minnesota’s Human Rights Commissioner Because They Refused To Film Same-Sex Weddings

Filmmakers Sued Minnesota’s Human Rights Commissioner Because They Refused To Film Same-Sex Weddings, Which Was A Violation Of Minnesota’s Public Accommodation Law. According to the Associated Press, “A federal appeals court on Friday reinstated a lawsuit filed by two Minnesota filmmakers who want the right to refuse to film same-sex weddings, saying that videos are a form of speech with constitutional protections under the First Amendment. Carl and Angel Larsen, who run a Christian business called Telescope Media Group in St. Cloud, sued the state’s human rights commissioner in 2016, saying Minnesota’s public accommodation law would result in steep fines and jail time if they offered services promoting only their vision of marriage.” [Associated Press, 8/23/19]

Stras Wrote An Opinion Overturning A Lower Court Decision Dismissing The Case

After A Lower Court Dismissed The Case, Stras Wrote An Opinion Overturning The Decision, Saying The Videographers Had First Amendment Rights, Which Included Refusing To Film Same-Sex Weddings. According to the Associated Press, “A federal judge dismissed the case two years ago. But a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision Friday. The panel sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to consider a preliminary injunction that would allow the Larsens to operate their business without fear of being found in violation of Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, the Star Tribune reported. Judge David Stras, a former Minnesota Supreme Court justice, wrote in Friday’s opinion that wedding videos involve editorial judgment and control and ‘constituted a media for the communication of ideas.’ He said the Constitution’s First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say.” [Associated Press, 8/23/19]

David Stras On Democracy

Stras Opposed Voting Rights And Efforts Towards A More Transparent Democracy

Stras Ruled To Weaken The Voting Rights Act

Stras Ruled That Private Citizens Could Not Sue To Protect Their Voting Rights. According to the Nation, “Last Monday, just before Thanksgiving, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit tried to pull a villain move on the 15th Amendment of the Constitution by gluing shut the mouths of Black people fighting for the right to vote. In a shocking and legally dubious decision, the circuit ruled in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Public Policy Panel that private citizens could not sue to protect their voting rights under the law that is literally named The Voting Rights Act. Trump-appointed judge David Stras wrote the decision.” [Nation, 11/29/23]

The Nation: Stras’ Ruling Made The Voting Rights Act “Functionally Inoperable.” According to the Nation, “Of course, Stras isn’t trying to take the right to sue away from any bigoted website designer who doesn’t want to serve same-sex couples, or any white man who is angry that their mediocre child missed out on their first choice of a university. Instead, Stras is focused on stopping groups like the NAACP from suing on just one topic: voting rights. In so doing, this ruling doesn’t merely weaken the Voting Rights Act; it makes the law functionally inoperable.” [Nation, 11/29/23]

January 2024: The Eighth Circuit Announced It Would Not Rehear The Case

January 2024: The Eighth Circuit Announced It Refused To Rehear The Case. According to the NAACP, “Today, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals announced it will not rehear the Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment voting case. Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP is challenging the Arkansas State House map, arguing that the map unlawfully suppresses Black voting power and violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Today’s decision comes following an appeal in a 2-1 ruling in November where the Eighth Circuit panel backed a district court decision that determined private parties cannot pursue legal action to protect their voting rights under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.” [NAACP, 1/30/24]

Stras Ruled In Favor Of A Deceptive Ballot Measure That Challengers Said Did Not Accurately Describe The Voter ID Law It Was Pushing

Challengers Argued That A Minnesota Ballot Measure On Voter ID Was Deceptively Worded

The Minnesota State Legislature Introduced A State Constitution Amendment Titled “Photo Identification Required For Voting” They Wanted To Put On The Ballot, It Would Have Required A Photo ID To Vote. According to vLex, “In the same session law, the Legislature also approved the language of the question to be placed on the November 2012 general election ballot concerning the proposed constitutional amendment: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013? Id. § 2(a), 2012 Minn. Laws at 146. Finally, the Legislature approved a title for the ballot question: ‘Photo Identification Required for Voting.’ Id. § 2(b), 2012 Minn. Laws at 146.” [vLex, accessed 6/25/24]

• The Amendment Required “All Voters, Including Those Not Voting In Person, Must Be Subject To Substantially Equivalent Identity And Eligibility Verification Prior To A Ballot Being Cast Or Counted.” According to Case Text, “The proposed amendment would designate the provision above as (a) and add two subsections, (b) and (c), as follows: (b) All voters voting in person must present valid government-issued photographic identification before receiving a ballot. The state must issue photographic identification at no charge to an eligible voter who does not have a form of identification meeting the requirements of this section. A voter unable to present government-issued photographic identification must be permitted to submit a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot must only be counted if the voter certifies the provisional ballot in the manner provided by law. (c) All voters, including those not voting in person, must be subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification prior to a ballot being cast or counted.” [Case Text, accessed 6/25/24]

The Proposed Amendment Was Challenged Because The Proposed Wording On The Ballot Because It Was Misleading And Did Not “Accurately And Factually Describe The Proposed Amendment.” According to vLex, “On May 30, 2012, petitioners filed a petition with our court under Minn.Stat. § 204B.44, seeking to ‘strik[e] the ballot question pertaining to the Voter Identification and Provisional Ballot Amendment’ and to enjoin the Secretary of State from placing the question on the November 2012 general election ballot. Petitioners allege that the Legislature’s ballot question ‘is misleading because it does not accurately and factually describe the proposed amendment, and because it fails to describe at all certain important substantive provisions contained in the amendment.’” [vLex, accessed 6/25/24]

Stras Denied The Petition From The Challengers, Essentially Allowing The Proposed Amendment To Appear On The Ballot

Stras Along With The Rest Of The State Supreme Court Denied An Appeal From The Challengers To The Amendment Thus Allowing The Poorly Worded Amendment To Appear On The State Ballot. According to Case Text, “PER CURIAM. This action was brought under Minn.Stat. § 204B.44 (2010), seeking to correct an alleged error in the preparation of the ballot for the general election. Specifically, petitioners seek to prevent the people of Minnesota from voting on the question of whether photographic identification should be required to vote in Minnesota. The court is unanimous in concluding that petitioners are not entitled to this unprecedented relief. We express no opinion in this case as to the merits of changing Minnesota law to require photographic identification to vote; that question, as petitioners concede, is not presented in this case. Because we conclude that the petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating that there is an error that requires the judiciary to intercede, we deny the petition.” [Case Text, accessed 6/25/24]

The Measure Was Eventually Defeated

The Voter ID Ballot Measure Was Defeated. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “On Tuesday, Minnesota voters defeated a ballot initiative that would have amended the state constitution to require voters to present a photo ID at the polls in order to be able to vote. This was the latest in a string of pushback victories for voting rights, and the final verdict was squarely in the hands of voters.” [Brennan Center for Justice, 11/9/12]

Stras Struck Down A Missouri Lobbying Registration And Disclosure Law

A Missouri State Lobbyist Argued That He Should Not Have To Register As A Lobbyist Given That He Was Uncompensated, Challenging The State Law. According to the Harvard Law Review, “Where do courts draw the line between lobbyists and politically involved individuals in determining the constitutionality of lobbyist registration laws?  Recently, the en banc Eight Circuit addressed this question in Calzone v. Summers by holding that Missouri’s lobbyist registration law violated the First Amendment as applied to an uncompensated lobbyist who incurred no expenditures.  As the court aptly stated: an individual ‘does not lose his First Amendment rights just because he speaks through an organization that shares his perspective.’  Despite the dissenters’ concerns regarding the categorical rule, it is far from clear whether the court’s decision will have the feared effect of broadly undermining such disclosure laws. […] Ronald Calzone, an ‘active figure in Missouri politics’ who is the sole agent of a nonprofit organization called Missouri First, qualified as a ‘legislative lobbyist’ under Missouri’s statute according to section 105.470(5) because he is a ‘natural person who acts for the purpose of attempting to influence . . . [legislative] action’ and is ‘designated to act as a lobbyist by any . . . entity.’  This is despite the fact that he neither received compensation from Missouri First, nor incurred any expenditures associated with his lobbying activities.   In 2016, after the Missouri Ethics Commission began investigating Calzone for alleged violations of the statute, Calzone filed a federal suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent enforcement of the law.  The district court rejected his as-applied First Amendment challenge, finding that lobbying registration furthered the ‘important interest’ of ‘government transparency,’ thereby satisfying exacting scrutiny as applied to an uncompensated lobbyist.  Similarly, it rejected Calzone’s facial challenge based on the statute’s constitutional vagueness. [Harvard Law Review, 12/5/19]

Stras Dissented From An Opinion Upholding The Law

Stras Dissented From An Opinion Upholding The Law. According to Wiley, “A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently upheld, by a 2-1 vote, Missouri’s lobbying registration and reporting laws as applied to an unpaid volunteer lobbyist. The ruling underscores the varying thresholds and circumstances that trigger state lobbying registration and reporting requirements, and the very minimal or nonexistent thresholds in some states. […] In a strong dissenting opinion, Judge David Stras suggested that perhaps a more demanding ‘strict scrutiny’ review standard should apply to lobbying reporting laws. Judge Stras also criticized the majority for acting as a mere ‘rubber stamp’ for Missouri’s law under the more relaxed ‘exacting scrutiny’ standard.” [Wiley, January 2019]

The Case Was Heard By The Entire Eighth Circuit, And Stras Wrote The Opinion Partially Striking Down The Law

After The Case Was Heard By The Entire Eighth Circuit, Stras Wrote An Opinion Partially Striking Down The Law. According to People for the American Way, “Trump judge David Stras wrote a 6-5 November decision for the full 8th Circuit court of appeals in Calzone v. Summers that reversed a prior decision in which he had dissented and partly struck down a Missouri lobbyist registration and disclosure law, endangering other such disclosure requirements. The three other Trump judges on the 8th Circuit – Ralph Erickson, Steven Grasz, and Jonathan Kobes – provided deciding votes in favor of Stras’ opinion.” [People for the American Way, 12/2/19]

David Stras On Children

Stras Ruled To Limit Care And Aid For Children

Stras Sided With The Majority In Limiting State Benefits For A Severely Disabled Nine-Year-Old Child

A Nine-Year-Old Boy With Severe Disabilities And His Family Sued After His Benefits Were Reduced. According to Case Text, “Appellant is a nine-year-old boy with severe autism, epilepsy, chronic seizures, chronic sinusitis and otitis, and sleep disturbances. Before 2010, appellant qualified for and received PCA services for dependencies in five activities of daily living (‘ADLs’). They were dressing, grooming, bathing, eating, and toileting. He received additional PCA services because he had, among other things, behaviors resulting from cognitive deficits. Because appellant was determined to be independent in the activities of transfers, positioning, and mobility, appellant received no PCA services for those ADLs. […] Based upon the assessment, the PHN recommended that appellant receive 390 minutes (6 hours, 30 minutes) per day of PCA time. The decrease from the previous PCA time of 462 minutes (7 hours 42 minutes) per day was due to the statutory amendments that limited PCA time for behavioral needs to 90 minutes per day. SeeMinn.Stat. §§ 256B.0652, subd. 6(c)(3) (2012), 256B.0659, subd. 4(d) (30 minutes per day for each of the three statutorily-defined behaviors). As a result of the PHN’s assessment, DHS notified appellant on March 24, 2010, that his authorized PCA services would be reduced from 462 minutes to 390 minutes per day. […] Appellant challenged the reduction in his PCA time, and a DHS judge conducted an evidentiary hearing at which appellant’s father, mother, and physician testified. […] The court of appeals reversed, determining that the plain meaning of mobility is ‘‘moving’ (from place to place).’ A.A.A. v. Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., 818 N.W.2d 552, 556 (Minn.App.2012). The court of appeals concluded that because appellant is ‘able to begin and complete moving from place to place without assistance, and he does not need cuing and constant supervision or hands-on assistance to do so,’ he is not dependent in the ADL of mobility. Id. Consequently, the court of appeals concluded that appellant was entitled to only 390 minutes of PCA time per day. Id.” [Case Text, accessed 6/25/24]

Stras Joined Other Judges Of The Minnesota Supreme Court In Affirming The Decision Of The Appeals Court To Limit The Boy’s Care Time

Stras, As Part Of The Minnesota Supreme Court Justices Affirmed The Decision Of An Appeals Court That Decreased The Boy’s Care Time. According to Case Text, “DIETZEN, Justice. This case requires us to determine whether a person who is physically able to move without assistance, but who lacks the ability to direct his movement to a specific location, has a dependency in ‘mobility’ under Minn.Stat. § 256B.0659 (2012). Appellant A.A.A. challenges the decision of the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (‘DHS’), who found that appellant is not dependent in ‘mobility,’ and therefore reduced his authorized personal care assistant (‘PCA’) services covered through the Minnesota Medical Assistance program. The district court reversed the Commissioner’s decision, concluding that the statute does not require appellant to be physically incapable of mobility to be eligible for covered services. The court of appeals reversed the district court and reinstated the Commissioner’s decision because appellant is physically able to begin and complete moving from place to place without assistance. We affirm the court of appeals.” [Case Text, accessed 6/25/24]

Stras Argued That A Child Was Not Entitled To Compensation After A Car And Bus Crashed

Four Young People Were Killed And 17 Were Injured When Olga Franco Blew Through A Stop Sign And Slammed Into Their School Bus. According to Minnesota Public Radio News, “More than seven years ago, four young people were killed and 17 were injured in Cottonwood, Minn., when Olga Franco blew through a stop sign and slammed into their school bus. She’s in prison now but a case decided at the Minnesota Supreme Court today reveals that some survivors of the crash are still paying a price. Franco not only didn’t have a driver’s license, she wasn’t covered by the insurance on the minivan she was driving.” [Minnesota Public Radio News, 8/5/15]

The Total Damages For The Victims Was $5,302,800 But The Bus’ Insurance Coverage Did Not Cover The Cost. According to Minnesota Public Radio News, “A special master determined that the total damages for the victims was $5,302,800. But the school bus company’s coverage for damages from an uninsured motorist didn’t come close to covering that.” [Minnesota Public Radio News, 8/5/15]

One Of The Young People, Cody Sleiter, Sued After He Did Not Receive Enough From Insurance To Cover His Claims. According to Minnesota Public Radio News, “In one case, that of Cody Sleiter, his $140,000 in damages was only covered for about $35,000. So Sleiter sought additional benefits — $65,000 — under his family’s own auto insurance coverage for uninsured motorists, but American Family rejected the attempt, citing state law that Sleiter’s damages of $140,000 did not exceed the $1 million coverage available under the school bus company’s policy, even though that amount had to be split among all of those injured on the bus. Sleiter’s family sued and lost at trial, but the Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to decide what is the amount of the coverage available: the total amount to all the victims, or the amount recovered by a single victim? Today the court sided with Sleiter.” [Minnesota Public Radio News, 8/5/15]

Stras Dissented, Arguing Against The Compensation Sleiter Sought

In A Dissent, Stras Argued Deny Sleiter The Compensation He Needed For His Care. According to Minnesota Public Radio News, “That brought a dissent from Justice David Stras, who acknowledged Sleiter’s case is ‘tragic’ and that he and his family did not receive proper compensation for his injuries. But he shouldn’t have under state law, he said. ‘Inexplicably, however, the court simply refuses to look to the statute’s first sentence, which answers the precise question posed by the court of how to identify the limit of the coverage available from the occupied vehicle in an accident involving multiple victims,’ Stras said. […] ‘It is quite a logical leap to hypothesize, without any objective evidence, that the Legislature failed to consider the exceedingly common situation in which a car accident results in injuries to multiple people,’ Stras wrote.” [Minnesota Public Radio News, 8/5/15]

David Stras On Age Discrimination

Stras Ruled In Favor Of Age Discrimination

In Peterson v. City Of Minneapolis, Peterson Filed An Age Discrimination Complaint Which Was Affirmed By The Minnesota Supreme Court

Peterson Filed An Age Discrimination Lawsuit After Their Employer Dismissed A Complaint Whose Investigation Lasted More Than One Year, The State Wanted Dismiss The Case Because Peterson Filed It Outside The One-Year Statute Of Limitations. According to Case Text, “In Peterson v. City of Minneapolis, Peterson filed a complaint with the human resources department under the City’s ‘Respect in the Workplace Policy’ in November 2011. Following an investigation that lasted more than one year (concluding in January 2013), the City determined it could not substantiate his claim. Peterson then filed an age discrimination lawsuit under the MHRA. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that Peterson’s claim was time-barred because he filed it outside the one-year statute of limitations. While the district court agreed and dismissed the claim, the court of appeals reversed. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.” [Case Text, accessed 6/24/24]

Stras Dissented From A Decision Allowing Peterson’s Suit To Go Forward

The Minnesota Supreme Court Affirmed A Lower Court Decision That Allowed The Suit To Go Forward. According to Case Text, “In Peterson v. City of Minneapolis, Peterson filed a complaint with the human resources department under the City’s ‘Respect in the Workplace Policy’ in November 2011. Following an investigation that lasted more than one year (concluding in January 2013), the City determined it could not substantiate his claim. Peterson then filed an age discrimination lawsuit under the MHRA. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that Peterson’s claim was time-barred because he filed it outside the one-year statute of limitations. While the district court agreed and dismissed the claim, the court of appeals reversed. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.” [Case Text, accessed 6/24/24]

Stras Agreed With Justice Anderson In The Belief That Peterson Was Not In A Dispute Resolution Process So The Statute Of Limitation Did Not Need To Be Suspended Thus Peterson Should Not Have Won His Suit. According to Case Text, “ANDERSON, Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The plain language of Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 3(b) (2016), requires that the parties be engaged in a ‘dispute resolution process’ to suspend the statute of limitations for a claim of unlawful discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Because the City of Minneapolis’s Respect in the Workplace Policy is not a dispute resolution process and the complainant was unable to engage in the Workplace Policy investigation, the statute of limitations here was not suspended under the statute, the complaint was not timely filed, and I would accordingly reverse the decision of the court of appeals. […] STRAS, Justice (dissenting). I join in the dissent of Justice Anderson.” [Case Text, accessed 6/24/24]