8th Circuit decides North Dakota case Wednesday, June 24, 2026

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit decided Sophia Wilansky v. Morton County, North Dakota, U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 24-1911.

View the court's decision here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/06/241911P.pdf

From Justia Daily Opinion Summary:

"During protests opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline in November 2016, Sophia Wilansky was severely injured when police fired an aerial warning munition that struck her arm. Earlier that night, officers had ordered Wilansky and another protester to disperse from a barricade on a closed bridge, warning that they would use less-lethal munitions if the order was ignored. When Wilansky and the other protester did not comply, officers fired various less-lethal munitions. After Wilansky began retreating, she was struck by the aerial munition, causing permanent injury to her left hand and forearm.

Following the incident, Wilansky filed two lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. She alleged, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that county and state officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that Morton County maintained unconstitutional policies or customs. During the litigation, the district court struck certain new allegations and defendants from one complaint and ordered Wilansky to file an amended complaint. Wilansky then filed a second lawsuit with additional allegations against the stricken defendants. The district court ultimately dismissed both cases with prejudice.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgments. The court held that Wilansky did not sufficiently plead that the officers’ actions amounted to a clearly established Fourth Amendment seizure, nor did her allegations meet the “shocks the conscience” standard required for a Fourteenth Amendment claim. The court further held that she failed to establish a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by Morton County as of the date of her injury. Finally, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims with prejudice." (Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/24-1911/24-1911-2026-06-24.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2026-06-25-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-eighth-circuit-53e1196007&utm_content=text-case-title-2)