Gerald Geier v. Missouri Ethics Commission
715 F.3d 674
8th Cir.2013Background
- Stop Now! formed in 1991 to oppose tax increases in the Kansas City area; by 2011, still filing statements of limited activity.
- Missouri Ethics Commission brought an enforcement action on April 2, 2012 for failure to file ongoing reports and documents.
- Stop Now! filed this federal suit on November 20, 2012 seeking First Amendment relief and injunctions.
- District court, at a November 30, 2012 hearing, abstained under Younger doctrin e after finding adequate state forum.
- Stop Now! moved on December 3, 2012 to amend to allege that Geier’s political speech was chilled; district court then dismissed the action.
- This appeal challenges the denial of amendment and the Younger abstention ruling; the court affirms the abstention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was amendment allowed as a matter of course? | Stop Now! sought leave to amend within Rule 15 after dismissal. | Amendment improper once the action was dismissed; not permitted post-dismissal. | Amendment was futile; district court's denial affirmed. |
| Did Missouri’s statute render Younger abstention improper or an exception apply? | Missouri scheme unconstitutional under Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life; Hill exception applies. | No exception; Missouri proceedings provide adequate opportunity; statutes not flagrantly unconstitutional. | Younger abstention affirmed; no applicable exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. Selig, 664 F.3d 1245 (8th Cir. 2012) (abstention context for First Amendment challenges)
- Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, Ark., 163 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 1998) (First Amendment challenges and Younger abstention in 8th Cir.)
- Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2010) (Younger framework and adequacy of state proceedings)
- Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442 (8th Cir. 1985) (rule on amendments after dismissal and leave to amend)
- Czeremcha v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 724 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1984) (distinguishing dismissal of complaint vs. dismissal of action)
- Whitaker v. City of Houston, Tex., 963 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1992) (when amendment is improper due to final dismissal)
- Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012) (limits of First Amendment facial-challenge exceptions to abstention)
- Hill v. City of Houston, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (Pullman/Hill abstention context; First Amendment challenges not always preclusive)