Eighth Circuit
Coverage of Eighth Circuit in the Nexus archive.
- Arkansas accuses pharma companies of plot to undermine federal drug discount program
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin sued pharmaceutical companies including Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, alleging they conspired to block healthcare providers from accessing discounted drugs under the 340B federal program. The companies are accused of imposing restrictive requirements to limit the use of contract pharmacies, which covered entities rely on to serve underserved communities.
- Eighth Circuit revives Kansas City conversion therapy ban challenge
The Eighth Circuit revived a lawsuit challenging Kansas City and Jackson County’s conversion therapy ban, citing the Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, which found a similar Colorado law violated the First Amendment. Therapists Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich argue the ordinances infringe on their free speech rights by prohibiting discussions with clients seeking to align their identity with their sex or avoid same-sex attractions.
- Novartis stumbles in challenge to Missouri discounted drug mandate
An Eighth Circuit panel denied Novartis Pharmaceuticals' request to block Missouri's Senate Bill 751, which requires drugmakers to provide discounted 340B program drugs to eligible providers. The court ruled the law does not violate the dormant commerce clause as it regulates only in-state delivery of drugs to contract pharmacies.
- Arkansas asks Eighth Circuit to revive law targeting librarians over ‘harmful’ books
Arkansas is appealing a lower court's injunction blocking parts of a 2023 law that could jail librarians and booksellers for shelving books deemed 'harmful to minors.' The state argues the law promotes government speech transparency, while opponents claim it violates the First Amendment through vague language and overbroad criminal penalties.
- Eighth Circuit skeptical of South Dakotans’ challenge to ballot petition deadline
A federal appeals court panel in the Eighth Circuit expressed skepticism toward a challenge to South Dakota’s revised ballot petition deadline, which shifted the submission period for citizen-led measures from May to February. The advocacy group Dakotans for Health argued the change unconstitutionally restricts political speech, but the court questioned whether the earlier deadline imposes an undue burden, with state attorneys defending it as a reasonable measure to allow more time for legal challenges before elections.