Bennie, Jr. v. Munn, No. 14-3473 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a financial advisor, filed suit for First Amendment retaliation, against Nebraska financial regulators after they investigated him and his broker-dealer employer around the time a newspaper reported plaintiff made unkind comments about the President of the United States. As a threshold matter, the court concluded that the remedy plaintiffs seeks - declaratory and injunctive relief - is the sort of prospective relief that can be sought in federal court from state officials sued in their official capacities, notwithstanding the state’s sovereign immunity, under Ex Parte Young; the state regulators’ voluntary cessation of their improper inquiries did not moot plaintiff’s case because the department still has regulatory authority over him and the state regulators’ assurances that they know better than to retaliate against him again are not enough to make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur; and the state regulators are mistaken that plaintiff’s requested injunction would be unenforceable and provide no relief. On the merits, the court applied a clear error standard of review and concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that even though the regulators targeted plaintiff partly in retaliation for his constitutionally protected political speech, they did not do enough to deter someone of ordinary firmness from continuing to speak. Therefore, plaintiff's claim failed and the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The remedy plaintiff sought - a declaratory judgment and injunction against future retaliation - is the kind of prospective relief that can be sought in federal court from state officials sued in their official capacities; state regulators' voluntary cessation of improper inquiries did not moot the case as the department still has regulatory authority over plaintiff, and its assurances that the regulators now know better are not enough to make it absolutely clear that the wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur; the standard of review for the district court's decision on the question of whether state regulators' actions against plaintiff would have chilled an ordinary person's speech is clear error; the district court did not clearly err in finding that the state regulators' actions against plaintiff would not have quieted a person of ordinary firmness. Judge Beam, concurring in part and dissenting in part. [ May 10, 2016
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.