Republican Appointed Eighth Circuit Approves of Star Chamber Shenanigans

An appeal of orders that benefitted debt collector Goliath Portfolio Recovery Associates was shot down by the Republican appointed Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals today.

Circuit Judges Raymond W. Gruender, appointed by G.W. Bush, Ralph R. Erickson, appointed by Donald Trump, and David Stras, appointed by Donald Trump, gave a unanimous, though unsupported opinion. The most troubling point from a Constitutional perspective, was that the company business records about the account were inaccurate on their face and both District and Circuit court agreed the records should be kept under seal.

Here is a conversation I had with ChatGPT about the 8th circuit judges unsupported opinion:

Is a federal circuit court of appeals required to give reasons in an opinion, or are the circuit judges allowed to give a blanket reason such as “the appellant was wrong about all her arguments”?

ChatGPT

In the U.S. judicial system, federal circuit courts of appeals are generally expected to provide reasons for their decisions in written opinions. The requirement for reasons is rooted in the principles of transparency, accountability, and fairness in the judicial process. Here are some key points:

Common Practice

1. Detailed Opinions: Federal circuit courts typically issue written opinions that explain the legal reasoning behind their decisions. These opinions provide a detailed analysis of the arguments, applicable law, and how the law applies to the facts of the case.
2. Per Curiam Opinions: In some cases, the court may issue a brief, unsigned opinion known as a “per curiam” opinion. These opinions are often used in cases that do not involve new or complex legal issues and can be brief, but they still usually provide some reasoning.

Legal Requirements

1. Judicial Transparency: The requirement for reasons is not explicitly stated in the Constitution or in any statute, but it is implied by the need for judicial transparency and the appellate process. Detailed opinions help ensure that the parties understand the basis for the court’s decision and provide a basis for further appeal, if necessary.
2. Judicial Precedent: Detailed opinions contribute to the development of case law, which is essential for consistency and predictability in the law. Future courts and litigants rely on the reasoning in these opinions to understand and apply the law.

Blanket Rejections

• Not Typical: A blanket statement such as “the appellant was wrong about all her arguments” without any further explanation would be highly unusual and generally not acceptable. It would likely be seen as insufficient to meet the standards of judicial reasoning and could be challenged as lacking in due process.
• Potential Repercussions: If a court were to issue such a statement without providing reasons, it could undermine the legitimacy of the decision and might lead to further legal challenges. The appellate process relies on reasoned decisions to ensure fairness and accountability.

Conclusion

Federal circuit courts of appeals are expected to provide reasoned opinions when deciding cases. While there is some flexibility in how detailed the reasoning must be, a blanket dismissal of arguments without explanation would not meet the standards typically upheld by the judiciary. If you ever find yourself dealing with a case where the court has not provided sufficient reasoning, it may be grounds for seeking further review or appeal.

I will ask for review and then appeal. Any contributions of legal expertise and money to cover filing and printing fees will be appreciated. Contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com if you can help.

Here is my appellate brief.