Public policy made simple. Dive into ourinformation hub today!

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

From Ballotpedia

Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals

Judgeships
Posts: 11
Judges: 11
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief:Steven Colloton
Active judges:William D. Benton,Steven Colloton,Ralph Erickson,L. Steven Grasz,Raymond Gruender,Jane Kelly,Jonathan Kobes,James Loken,Bobby Shepherd,Lavenski Smith,David Stras Senior judges: Morris Arnold,Clarence Arlen Beam,Pasco Bowman,David Hansen,Michael Melloy,Roger Wollman

TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is afederal appellate court with appellatejurisdiction. It hears appeals from all of the circuit courts within its jurisdiction and its rulings may be appealed to theSupreme Court of the United States.

The Eighth Circuit has 11 authorized judicial posts. The chief judge of the court isLavenski Smith, who was appointed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush (R). Four of the judges on the court wereappointed by Donald Trump (R).

Appeals are heard in the Thomas Eagleton U.S. Courthouse inSt. Louis, Missouri.

Three judges of the Eighth Circuit went on to serve on theSupreme Court of the United States. Willis Van Devanter was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1910 byWilliam Howard Taft, Charles Evans Whittaker was appointed in 1957 byDwight Eisenhower, and Harry Blackmun was appointed in 1970 byRichard Nixon.

This page contains the following information on the Eighth Circuit.

An overview of the court'sjurisdiction
A list of the court'sactive and senior judges
A list of the court'scurrent vacancies
Abrief history of the court
Case reversal statistics by the Supreme Court of the United States
Noteworthy cases heard by the court
A list of the court'sformer judges
Information aboutU.S. Courts of Appeals
Where the court islocated

Vacancies

See also:Current federal judicial vacancies

There are no current vacancies on theEighth Circuit, out of the court's 11 judicial positions.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominees for this court.

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
James Loken	George H.W. Bush (R)	October 17, 1990 -	University of Wisconsin, 1962	Harvard Law School, 1965
Lavenski Smith	George W. Bush (R)	July 19, 2002 -	University of Arkansas, 1981	University of Arkansas School of Law, 1987
Steven Colloton	George W. Bush (R)	September 10, 2003 -	Princeton University, 1985	Yale Law School, 1988
Raymond Gruender	George W. Bush (R)	June 5, 2004 -	Washington University of St. Louis, 1984	Washington University of St. Louis, 1987
William D. Benton	George W. Bush (R)	July 2, 2004 -	Northwestern University, 1972	Yale Law School, 1975
Bobby Shepherd	George W. Bush (R)	October 10, 2006 -	Ouachita Baptist University, 1973	University of Arkansas School of Law, 1975
Jane Kelly	Barack Obama (D)	April 25, 2013 -	Duke University, 1987	Harvard Law School, 1991
Ralph Erickson	Donald Trump (R)	October 12, 2017 -	Jamestown College, 1980	University of North Dakota School of Law, 1984
L. Steven Grasz	Donald Trump (R)	January 3, 2018 -	University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1984	University of Nebraska College of Law, 1989
David Stras	Donald Trump (R)	January 31, 2018 -	University of Kansas, 1995	University of Kansas, School of Law, 1999
Jonathan Kobes	Donald Trump (R)	December 12, 2018 -	Dordt College, 1996	Harvard Law School, 2000

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

Below is a display of the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

Democratic appointed: 1
Republican appointed: 10

Senior judges

Senior status is a classification forfederal judges at all levels who are semi-retired. Senior judges are Article III judges who, having met eligibility through age and service requirements, continue to serve on federal courts while typically hearing a reduced number of cases. Some senior judges, however, elect to retain a full caseload after taking senior status. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, senior judges "typically handle about 15 percent of the federal courts' workload annually."^[1] The date listed under assumed office in the table below reflects the date that the judge took senior status.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Clarence Arlen Beam	Ronald Reagan (R)	February 1, 2001 -	University of Nebraska, 1951	University of Nebraska College of Law, 1965
David Hansen	George H.W. Bush (R)	April 1, 2003 -	Northwest Missouri State University, 1960	George Washington University Law Center, 1963
Pasco Bowman	Ronald Reagan (R)	August 1, 2003 -	Bridgewater College, 1955	New York University School of Law, 1958
Morris Arnold	George H.W. Bush (R)	October 9, 2006 -	University of Arkansas, 1965	University of Arkansas School of Law, 1968
Michael Melloy	George W. Bush (R)	February 1, 2013 -	Loras College, 1970	University of Iowa College of Law, 1974
Roger Wollman	Ronald Reagan (R)	December 14, 2018 -	Tabor College, 1957	University of South Dakota School of Law, 1962

Senior judges by appointing political party

Below is a display of the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

Democratic appointed: 0
Republican appointed: 6

Former chief judges

In order to qualify for the office ofchief judge in an Article III circuit or district court, or on theUnited States Court of International Trade, a judge must be in active service and hold seniority over the court's commissioned judges who are 64 years of age or under, have served one year or more, and have not previously served as chief judge.^[2]

In the event that no judge on the court meets those qualifications, the youngest judge in regular active service aged 65 years or more and who has served as a judge for one year or more shall become chief judge. If no judge meets those qualifications, the judge holding seniority in active service who has not served as chief before shall become the chief judge.^[3]^[4]^[5]

The chief judge serves for a term of seven years until another judge becomes eligible to serve in the position. No judge is permitted to serve as chief judge after reaching the age of 70 years unless no other judge is qualified to serve.^[3]^[4]^[5]

Unlike the chief justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of their term and does not create a vacancy on the court by the fact of their promotion.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

On theUnited States Court of Federal Claims, the chief judge is selected by thepresident of the United States. The judge must be less than 70 years of age. A chief may serve until they reach age 70 or until another judge is designated by the president as the new chief judge. If the president selects a new chief judge, the former chief judge may continue active service on the court for the remainder of their appointed term.^[6]

Lavenski Smith - (2017-2024)
William Riley - (2010-2017)
James Loken - (2003-2010)
David R. Hansen - (2002-2003)
Roger Wollman - (1999-2002)
Pasco Bowman - (1998-1999)
Morris Arnold - (1992-1998)
Donald Lay - (1979-1992)

Floyd Gibson - (1974-1979)
Pat Mehaffy - (1973-1974)
Marion Matthes - (1970-1973)
Martin Van Oosterhout - (1968-1970)
Charles Joseph Vogel - (1965-1968)
Harvey Johnsen - (1959-1965)
Archibald Gardner - (1948-1959)

Former judges

For more information on judges of the Eighth Circuit, seeformer federal judges of the Eighth Circuit.

Jurisdiction

Map of the Eighth Circuit. Click on a district to find out more about it.

The Eighth Circuit hasappellate jurisdiction over cases heard in one of its subsidiary districts. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law. Appeals of rulings by theEighth Circuit Court of Appeals are petitioned to theSupreme Court of the United States. JusticeBrett Kavanaugh is thecircuit justice for the Eighth Circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit hasjurisdiction over the United States district courts in the following federal judicial districts:

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2025. Click[show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.

Caseload statistics explanation
Term	Explanation
Cases filed and terminated	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columnsCases filed andCases terminated.
Average time from filing to disposition	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to date of disposition (acquittal, sentencing, dismissal, etc.). The chart below reflects the table columnsMedian time (Criminal) andMedian time (Civil).
Starting case load	The number of cases pending from the previous calendar year.
Cases filed	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year.
Cases terminated	The total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year.
Remaining cases	The number of civil and criminal cases pending at the end of a given year.
Median time (Criminal)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. In criminal cases, the date of disposition occurs on the day of sentencing or acquittal/dismissal.
Median time (Civil)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition.
Three-year civil cases	The number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year.
Vacant posts	The number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant.
Trial/Post	The number of trials completed divided by the number of authorized judgeships on the court. Trials include evidentiary trials, hearings on temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions.
Source:United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit caseload stats, 2010-2024
Year	Appeals Filed	Appeals Terminated	Pending Appeals	Terminations on the Merits (per Active Judge)	Procedural Terminations (per Active Judge)	Total Written Decisions (per Active Judge)	Number of Judgeships	Number of Sitting Senior Judges	Number of Vacant Judgeship Months	Median Time From Filing Notice of Appeal to Disposition
2010	2,900	3,281	1,415	502	140	168	11	6	0	9
2011	2,919	2,934	1,399	448	112	141	11	6	0	7
2012	3,084	2,957	1,527	524	46	162	11	4	0	6
2013	2,838	2,835	1,529	520	48	162	11	5	3	6
2014	2,968	3,000	1,500	578	51	181	11	4	0	6
2015	3,048	2,845	1,703	496	53	159	11	5	8	5
2016	3,649	3,121	2,231	597	46	189	11	6	13	6
2017	2,890	3,225	1,896	650	52	203	11	7	31	8
2018	2,802	2,789	1,908	547	52	176	11	7	9	7
2019	2,831	2,907	1,833	528	62	165	11	6	0	8
2020	2,772	3,025	1,580	591	58	188	11	4	0	6
2021	3,079	3,105	1,554	618	56	193	11	3	0	4
2022	2,621	2,704	1,481	556	63	166	11	3	0	4
2023	2,809	2,847	1,504	548	58	172	11	3	0	5
2024	2,680	2,478	1,706	514	62	164	11	3	0	5
Average	2,926	2,937	1,651	548	64	173	11	5	4	6

History

Court history

TheEighth Circuit was established by the United States Congress in 1891 with theEvarts Act of 1891, which established the first nine appeals circuits. Over the years, nine additional seats were added to the court resulting in a total of eleven seats.^[7] To learn more about the history of the Eighth Circuit, please contact theHistorical Society of the United States Courts in the Eighth Circuit.

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Eighth Circuit:^[7]

Year	Statute	Total Seats
March 3, 1891	26 Stat. 826	2
July 23, 1894	28 Stat. 115	3
January 31, 1903	32 Stat. 791	4
March 3, 1925	43 Stat. 1116	6
February 28, 1929	45 Stat. 1346	5
May 24, 1940	54 Stat. 219	7
March 18, 1966	80 Stat. 75	8
October 20, 1978	92 Stat. 1629	9
July 10, 1984	98 Stat. 333	10
December 1, 1990	104 Stat. 5089	11

Reversal rate

See also:SCOTUS case reversal rates (2007 - Present)

Since 2007, SCOTUS has released opinions in1,313 cases. Of those, it reversed a lower court decision938 times (71.4 percent) while affirming a lower court decision363 times (27.6 percent).

In that time period, SCOTUS has decided56 cases originating from the Eighth Circuit, affirming in 14 cases and reversing in 42 cases, for a reversal rate of75 percent. As of the end of the2023 term, of the Article III circuits—the ordinal circuits, the D.C. Circuit, and the Federal Circuit—the court with the lowest rate of overturned decisions is theFourth Circuit at 62.1 percent.

Noteworthy cases

The following are noteworthy cases heard before this court. To suggest cases we should cover here,email us. To read opinions published by this court, clickhere.

• States takeRoe v. Wade challenge to federal court (2015)	Click for summary→
In 2015,North Dakota andArkansas asked theEighth Circuit to reinstate strict abortion laws that were struck down in 2014 by judges in the U.S. district courts. In North Dakota, the law at issue mandated a cut-off for abortions at six weeks post-conception; this was the strictest time frame in the nation. The governor of North Dakota, Jack Dalyrmple, stated that the law was strict in an effort to force a new challenge ofRoe at theUnited States Supreme Court level.^[8] In Arkansas, the law allowed abortions until the 12th week. Central to the arguments made by both sides of this challenge was viability of the fetus, which theUnited States Supreme Court has defined as survival outside of the womb in opinions subsequent toRoe. Attorneys for North Dakota argued that the standard for determining life is the heartbeat, and therefore a fetus is viable once that is detected. The other side, however, argues that viability means that the fetus can survive outside the mother’s womb with or without assistance from medical equipment. Arkansas lawyers argued that “viability standards have changed.”^[9] Opponents of both states’ laws said that the states want to ignore the framework set out by the Supreme Court inRoe and its progeny. Given that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, these opponents said that the states have an uphill battle ahead of them. In May of 2015, the court ruled that the Arkansas law was unconstitutional and later ruled that the North Dakota law was unconstitutional on July 22, 2015. "Because there is no genuine dispute that (North Dakota’s law) generally prohibits abortions before viability — as the Supreme Court has defined that concept — and because we are bound by Supreme Court precedent holding that states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions, we must affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs,” the July ruling stated.^[10] Articles: Daily Record, "North Dakota, Arkansas challenge Roe in federal court," January 13, 2015 NY Times, "Appeals Court Hears Arkansas, North Dakota Abortion Cases," January 13, 2015

• States takeRoe v. Wade challenge to federal court (2015)

Click for summary→

In 2015,North Dakota andArkansas asked theEighth Circuit to reinstate strict abortion laws that were struck down in 2014 by judges in the U.S. district courts. In North Dakota, the law at issue mandated a cut-off for abortions at six weeks post-conception; this was the strictest time frame in the nation. The governor of North Dakota, Jack Dalyrmple, stated that the law was strict in an effort to force a new challenge ofRoe at theUnited States Supreme Court level.^[8] In Arkansas, the law allowed abortions until the 12th week.

Central to the arguments made by both sides of this challenge was viability of the fetus, which theUnited States Supreme Court has defined as survival outside of the womb in opinions subsequent toRoe. Attorneys for North Dakota argued that the standard for determining life is the heartbeat, and therefore a fetus is viable once that is detected. The other side, however, argues that viability means that the fetus can survive outside the mother’s womb with or without assistance from medical equipment. Arkansas lawyers argued that “viability standards have changed.”^[9]

Opponents of both states’ laws said that the states want to ignore the framework set out by the Supreme Court inRoe and its progeny. Given that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, these opponents said that the states have an uphill battle ahead of them.

In May of 2015, the court ruled that the Arkansas law was unconstitutional and later ruled that the North Dakota law was unconstitutional on July 22, 2015. "Because there is no genuine dispute that (North Dakota’s law) generally prohibits abortions before viability — as the Supreme Court has defined that concept — and because we are bound by Supreme Court precedent holding that states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions, we must affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs,” the July ruling stated.^[10]

Articles:

• Eighth Circuit affirms police immunity following Taser death (2014)	Click for summary→
In June 2014, the Eighth Circuit ruled that Minneapolis police officers were entitled to qualified immunity after a suspect's death in a Taser incident during an arrest. Chief JudgeWilliam Riley, writing for a three-judge panel of the court that included JudgesMichael Melloy andJane Kelly, affirmed the trial court's ruling, writing that the police force used was reasonable under the circumstances. Articles: Courthouse News Service, "Cop Immunity on Taser Death Affirmed by 8th," June 12, 2014 Justia, "Smith v. City of Minneapolis, et al.," accessed August 1, 2014

• Eighth Circuit affirms police immunity following Taser death (2014)

Click for summary→

In June 2014, the Eighth Circuit ruled that Minneapolis police officers were entitled to qualified immunity after a suspect's death in a Taser incident during an arrest. Chief JudgeWilliam Riley, writing for a three-judge panel of the court that included JudgesMichael Melloy andJane Kelly, affirmed the trial court's ruling, writing that the police force used was reasonable under the circumstances.

Articles:

• Eighth Circuit blocks discovery attempt in lethal injection challenge (2014)	Click for summary→
TheEighth Circuit has ruled thatMissouri inmates have no right to discovery to learn more about the pharmacy used by the state to procure its execution drugs, unless they can show there is a more humane way to execute. The inmates argued that the drug combination used by the state was cruel and unusual punishment as it could cause “unconstitutionally excruciating death.”^[11] The state, through its Department of Corrections, argued that revealing the name of the pharmacy it used could cause the state to have trouble obtaining the drugs it needs to carry out executions. JudgeSteven Colloton wrote the majority opinion. In it, he cited theUnited States Supreme Court caseBaze v. Rees, which held that capital punishment is not violative of an individual’s constitutional rights and is a legal sentence. Because of this, a state must have a means to carry out that sentence. Chief Judge William Jay Riley agreed with the majority, along with JudgesRoger Wollman,James Loken,Lavenski Smith,Raymond Gruender andBobby Shepherd. JudgesDiana Murphy,Jane Kelly andKermit Bye dissented from the opinion. They said that death-row inmates could not suggest other ways to die before discovery is allowed. The Missouri inmates challenged the use of the lethal injection drugs only after the state could no longer procure one of the three standard drugs used in a drug cocktail in executions, and the state began to use just two drugs. Their lawyers said they wanted to gather more information about the pharmacy the state used to make the drugs for their executions, the pharmacists and the state’s own execution team. Articles: St. Louis Today, “Federal appeals decision deals blow to Missouri death row inmates,” January 29, 2014 Courthouse News, “Missouri Trumps Lethal Injection Opponents,” January 28, 2014

• Eighth Circuit blocks discovery attempt in lethal injection challenge (2014)

Click for summary→

TheEighth Circuit has ruled thatMissouri inmates have no right to discovery to learn more about the pharmacy used by the state to procure its execution drugs, unless they can show there is a more humane way to execute. The inmates argued that the drug combination used by the state was cruel and unusual punishment as it could cause “unconstitutionally excruciating death.”^[11] The state, through its Department of Corrections, argued that revealing the name of the pharmacy it used could cause the state to have trouble obtaining the drugs it needs to carry out executions.

JudgeSteven Colloton wrote the majority opinion. In it, he cited theUnited States Supreme Court caseBaze v. Rees, which held that capital punishment is not violative of an individual’s constitutional rights and is a legal sentence. Because of this, a state must have a means to carry out that sentence. Chief Judge William Jay Riley agreed with the majority, along with JudgesRoger Wollman,James Loken,Lavenski Smith,Raymond Gruender andBobby Shepherd. JudgesDiana Murphy,Jane Kelly andKermit Bye dissented from the opinion. They said that death-row inmates could not suggest other ways to die before discovery is allowed.

The Missouri inmates challenged the use of the lethal injection drugs only after the state could no longer procure one of the three standard drugs used in a drug cocktail in executions, and the state began to use just two drugs. Their lawyers said they wanted to gather more information about the pharmacy the state used to make the drugs for their executions, the pharmacists and the state’s own execution team.

Articles:

• Court upholds South Dakota abortion law (2012) Judge(s):En banc (full court) (Planned Parenthood v. State of South Dakota (2012), No. 09-3231/3233/3362)	Click for summary→
In July 2012, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheldSouth Dakota's 2005 abortion law that required doctors to inform patients that having an abortion was linked to depression and even suicide, prior to an operation being performed. The law was challenged as a violation of patients' due process and doctors'First Amendment rights. In addition, challengers to the law said that the statements required were not scientifically grounded and were yet unproven. The law was ruled unconstitutional by a three-judge panel of the appeals court, but later overturned by an appeal to the court as a whole.^[12]

• Lee County School District racial discrimination case (2012) Judge(s):Kermit Bye,Michael Melloy,Laurie Smith Camp (Sharon Sanders v. Lee County School Dist. No. 1, et al, 10-3240)	Click for summary→
OnFebruary 29, 2012, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit partially overturned a ruling of theEastern District of Arkansas, finding the Lee County School District to be guilty under federal discrimination laws. Sharon Sanders, a former school finance coordinator, took the district to court following her demotion and subsequent recommendation for dismissal on the basis of race discrimination. According to court records, Sanders and another administrator were demoted following an election where the school board became comprised of a majority of black members.^[13] In the original suit, Sanders was awarded compensatory damages, lost wages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees by a jury. Upon appeal, a judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas revoked the lost wages and reduced her award for attorney's fees. The ruling by the Eighth Circuit ordered new proceedings to determine fees for Sanders' attorney and punitive damages, but fundamentally agreed that she had been discriminated against on the basis of race.^[13]

• Lee County School District racial discrimination case (2012)
Judge(s):Kermit Bye,Michael Melloy,Laurie Smith Camp (Sharon Sanders v. Lee County School Dist. No. 1, et al, 10-3240)

Click for summary→

OnFebruary 29, 2012, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit partially overturned a ruling of theEastern District of Arkansas, finding the Lee County School District to be guilty under federal discrimination laws. Sharon Sanders, a former school finance coordinator, took the district to court following her demotion and subsequent recommendation for dismissal on the basis of race discrimination. According to court records, Sanders and another administrator were demoted following an election where the school board became comprised of a majority of black members.^[13]

In the original suit, Sanders was awarded compensatory damages, lost wages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees by a jury. Upon appeal, a judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas revoked the lost wages and reduced her award for attorney's fees. The ruling by the Eighth Circuit ordered new proceedings to determine fees for Sanders' attorney and punitive damages, but fundamentally agreed that she had been discriminated against on the basis of race.^[13]

• Appeal in retired NFL players' suit against NFLPA (2012) Judge(s):Unassigned (Eller v. National Football Association Players Association, Civil No. 11-2623 (SRN/JJG).)	Click for summary→
Retired NFL players filed with theEighth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the decision of JudgeSusan Richard Nelson to dismiss their suit against the NFL Players Association. The original suit was dismissed by Judge Nelson on May 29, 2012, in theUnited States District Court for the District of Minnesota.^[14] The appeal was heard by theEighth Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2013. The group, led by Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller, said that retired players lost money during the summer of 2011's collective bargaining negotiations between the NFLPA and team owners.^[15] Eller claimed that the retirees were shoved out of the negotiation process to streamline the talks.^[14] Judge Nelson dismissed the original suit, ruling that the retired players had no legal right to the hundreds of millions of dollars in additional post-career benefits they said they lost due to the lockout negotiations the previous year. In the decision, Judge Nelson wrote that she accepted the factual basis of the retirees’ claims, but disagreed that the current players had acted illegally during the negotiations.^[15]

Before the U.S. Supreme Court

This section focuses on cases the U.S. Supreme Court heard that originated in this court. To suggest cases we should cover here,email us.

2025-2026 term

See also:Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

The following case was scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2025-2026 term.

2025-2026 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 4th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Ellingburg v. United States	TBA	TBA	TBA

2024-2025 term

See also:Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

The following case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2024-2025 term.

2024-2025 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 4th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger	Elena Kagan	affirmed	9-0
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279	Chief Justice John Roberts	vacated andremanded	9-0

2023-2024 term

See also:Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

The following case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2023-2024 term.

2023-2024 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 8th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Pulsifer v. United States	Elena Kagan	affirmed	6-3
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri	Elena Kagan	vacated andremanded	9-0
Connelly v. Internal Revenue Service	Clarence Thomas	affirmed	9-0
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System	TBD	TBD	TBD

2022-2023 term

See also:Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

The following cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2022-2023 term.

2022-2023 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 8th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Jones v. Hendrix	Clarence Thomas	affirmed	6-3
Biden v. Nebraska	Chief Justice John Roberts	reversed andremanded	6-3
Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota	Chief Justice John Roberts	reversed	9-0

2021-2022 term

See also:Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2021-2022 term.

2021-2022 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 8th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue	Amy Coney Barrett	reversed andremanded	9-0
Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.	Elena Kagan	vacated andremanded	9-0
Missouri v. Biden	Per curiam	Application granted	5-4

2020-2021 term

See also:Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2020-2021 term.

2020-2021 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 8th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Pereida v. Barr	Neil Gorsuch	affirmed	5-3
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed andremanded	8-0
Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (Decided without argument)	Per curiam	vacated andremanded	6-3

2019-2020 term

See also:Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020

The following cases were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2019-2020 term.

2019-2020 U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 8th Circuit
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Thole v. U.S. Bank	Brett Kavanaugh	affirmed	5-4

Federal courthouse

The court is located at Thomas Eagleton U.S. Courthouse inSt. Louis, Missouri. The twenty-nine-story building was completed in 2000, and contains more than 1.3 million square feet of space. It is the tallest U.S. Federal courthouse, standing at 557 feet.^[16]

About United States Court of Appeals

TheUnited States courts of appeals (orcircuit courts) are the intermediateappellate courts of theUnited States federal courts. The court of appeals was originally created in 1891 and has grown to include thirteen courts.

A court of appeals decides appeals from any of thedistrict courts that are in its federal judicial circuit. The appeals courts also can hear appeals from some administrative agencies. Decisions of the federal appeals courts can, in turn, be appealed to theSupreme Court of the United States.

There are thirteen United States courts of appeals. In addition, there are other federal courts (such as theCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which hears appeals in court-martial cases) that have "Court of Appeals" in their titles.

The eleven numbered circuits and theD.C. Circuit are defined by geography. The thirteenth court of appeal is theCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court has nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of appeals based on what the underlying legal case is about.

All of the courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking. The largest share of this type of case is heard by the D.C. Circuit. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from specialized trial courts, primarily theCourt of International Trade and theCourt of Federal Claims, as well as appeals from the district courts inpatent cases and certain other specialized matters.

Federal circuit court judges are appointed for life. They are paid approximately $179,500 annually. At the age of 65, a federal judge may choose to retire with his or her full salary. Judges may also choose to go onsenior status at age 65, if they have served actively for 15 years.^[17]

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of appeals court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through November 1 of the first year of each president's second term in office. At this point in the term, Presidents Obama had the most appeals court appointments with 9.

Judges by circuit

See also:Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each circuit and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies on a circuit and how many pending nominations for that circuit are before theUnited States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line. It is updated every Monday.

External links

Footnotes

v • e U.S. Circuit Courts andDistrict Courts

First Circuit	District of Maine •District of Massachusetts •District of New Hampshire •District of Puerto Rico •District of Rhode Island

Second Circuit	District of Connecticut •Eastern District of New York •Northern District of New York •Southern District of New York •Western District of New York •District of Vermont

Third Circuit	District of Delaware •District of New Jersey •Eastern District of Pennsylvania •Middle District of Pennsylvania •Western District of Pennsylvania

Fourth Circuit	District of Maryland •Eastern District of North Carolina •Middle District of North Carolina •Western District of North Carolina •District of South Carolina •Eastern District of Virginia •Western District of Virginia •Northern District of West Virginia •Southern District of West Virginia

Fifth Circuit	Eastern District of Louisiana •Middle District of Louisiana •Western District of Louisiana •Northern District of Mississippi •Southern District of Mississippi •Eastern District of Texas •Northern District of Texas •Southern District of Texas •Western District of Texas

Sixth Circuit	Eastern District of Kentucky •Western District of Kentucky •Eastern District of Michigan •Western District of Michigan •Northern District of Ohio •Southern District of Ohio •Eastern District of Tennessee •Middle District of Tennessee •Western District of Tennessee

Seventh Circuit	Central District of Illinois •Northern District of Illinois •Southern District of Illinois •Northern District of Indiana •Southern District of Indiana •Eastern District of Wisconsin •Western District of Wisconsin

Eighth Circuit	Eastern District of Arkansas •Western District of Arkansas •Northern District of Iowa •Southern District of Iowa •District of Minnesota •Eastern District of Missouri •Western District of Missouri •District of Nebraska •District of North Dakota •District of South Dakota

Ninth Circuit	District of Alaska •District of Arizona •Central District of California •Eastern District of California •Northern District of California •Southern District of California •District of Hawaii •District of Idaho •District of Montana •District of Nevada •District of Oregon •Eastern District of Washington •Western District of Washington

Tenth Circuit	District of Colorado •District of Kansas •District of New Mexico •Eastern District of Oklahoma •Northern District of Oklahoma •Western District of Oklahoma •District of Utah •District of Wyoming

Eleventh Circuit	Middle District of Alabama •Northern District of Alabama •Southern District of Alabama •Middle District of Florida •Northern District of Florida •Southern District of Florida •Middle District of Georgia •Northern District of Georgia •Southern District of Georgia