{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-20", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:49b4aa", "proof": "sha256:debba62fb261c3331b49424dfedb44cbd34cfc08b86e4253bc1f9c71a2bec5a7", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "For the Eighth Circuit", "paragraphs": [ "para_3" ] }, { "title": "No. 25-1987", "paragraphs": [ "para_5" ] }, { "title": "Mary Holmes; Empower Missouri; Denise Davis; Andrew Dallas", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs - Appellees", "paragraphs": [ "para_8" ] }, { "title": "Jessica Bax, in her official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Social Services", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Defendant - Appellant", "paragraphs": [ "para_12" ] }, { "title": "National Health Law Program; Food Research & Action Center", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Amici on Behalf of Appellee(s)", "paragraphs": [ "para_15" ] }, { "title": "Appeal from United States District Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_17", "para_18" ] }, { "title": "Submitted: April 15, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Filed: August 19, 2026", "paragraphs": [ "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25" ] }, { "title": "Several Missourians—Mary Holmes, Denise Davis, and Andrew", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Dallas—along with Empower Missouri, a nonprofit organization that purports to", "paragraphs": [ "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs allege that Bax’s policies, practices, and procedures violate various", "paragraphs": [ "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37" ] }, { "title": "90 days, and it later entered a remedial order and final judgment. Bax appeals both", "paragraphs": [ "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42" ] }, { "title": "Congress established SNAP “to safeguard the health and well-being of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Nation’s population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households.”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "7 U.S.C. § 2011. This federally-funded and state-administered program provides", "paragraphs": [ "para_46", "para_47" ] }, { "title": "1Plaintiffs initially filed this lawsuit against Robert Knodell, the Acting", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services. He has since been replaced", "paragraphs": [ "para_50", "para_51" ] }, { "title": "To receive SNAP benefits, an individual must submit an initial application", "paragraphs": [ "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66" ] }, { "title": "In January 2022, Mary Holmes called DSS three times to request a SNAP", "paragraphs": [ "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74" ] }, { "title": "2Applicants are also permitted to interview in-person. Once requested, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_76" ] }, { "title": "3DSS operates resource centers throughout Missouri where applicants are", "paragraphs": [ "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83" ] }, { "title": "Andrew Dallas has epilepsy, which impacts his daily functioning. Relevant", "paragraphs": [ "para_85" ] }, { "title": "2021, DSS received a document from Dallas entitled “Food Stamp Change Report.”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In this report, Dallas explained that he has epilepsy and that he “cannot understand", "paragraphs": [ "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94" ] }, { "title": "Holmes, after joining this lawsuit, Dallas received an interview and was approved", "paragraphs": [ "para_96" ] }, { "title": "In November 2022, Denise Davis applied for SNAP benefits online, but DSS", "paragraphs": [ "para_98", "para_99" ] }, { "title": "Holmes and Dallas, she never spoke to a DSS employee because DSS repeatedly", "paragraphs": [ "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107" ] }, { "title": "Davis, and Dallas all now receive SNAP benefits, they anticipate needing this", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "4DSS asserts that her application contained an incorrect social security", "paragraphs": [ "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113" ] }, { "title": "Empower Missouri is the final plaintiff in this lawsuit. It is a nonprofit", "paragraphs": [ "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119" ] }, { "title": "2023, it spent $96,000 on addressing issues that arose from DSS’s administration of", "paragraphs": [ "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127" ] }, { "title": "Clause. Finally, they contend that Bax’s actions, inactions, policies, practices, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_129" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Regarding declaratory", "paragraphs": [ "para_131", "para_132", "para_133" ] }, { "title": "SNAP applicants to arbitrary and inconsistent application processes that result in", "paragraphs": [ "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139" ] }, { "title": "They request multiple forms of injunctive relief. First, they seek an order that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Bax provide Holmes with an interview within three days. Second, they ask that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148" ] }, { "title": "They also request that she adopt, implement, and monitor statewide policies and", "paragraphs": [ "para_150", "para_151" ] }, { "title": "(2) ensure that applicants and recipients with disabilities are provided with", "paragraphs": [ "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157" ] }, { "title": "The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argued that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Bax violated the SNAP Act by wrongfully denying their applications for failure to", "paragraphs": [ "para_160" ] }, { "title": "Additionally, Holmes and Davis contended that Bax violated their due process rights", "paragraphs": [ "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169" ] }, { "title": "The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and denied Bax’s motion. The", "paragraphs": [ "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176" ] }, { "title": "Turning to the merits, the district court held that Bax’s wrongful denials of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs’ SNAP applications violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Clause. It reasoned that Plaintiffs have a protected property interest in SNAP", "paragraphs": [ "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183" ] }, { "title": "The district court determined that permanent injunctive relief—requiring Bax", "paragraphs": [ "para_185" ] }, { "title": "Clause, and the ADA—was appropriate. The district court ordered Bax to file with", "paragraphs": [ "para_187" ] }, { "title": "It required that these reports also be filed with Missouri’s legislative and executive", "paragraphs": [ "para_189", "para_190" ] }, { "title": "The district court then entered its remedial order and final judgment. It", "paragraphs": [ "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199" ] }, { "title": "On appeal, Bax argues that we lack Article III jurisdiction and that the district", "paragraphs": [ "para_201", "para_202", "para_203" ] }, { "title": "She additionally argues that the individual plaintiffs’ claims are moot. We review", "paragraphs": [ "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209" ] }, { "title": "Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Pursuant to Article III’s case-or-controversy", "paragraphs": [ "para_211" ] }, { "title": "Ass’n v. City of Duluth, 142 F.4th 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2025). “[T]o establish", "paragraphs": [ "para_213", "para_214", "para_215" ] }, { "title": "TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). “[A] plaintiff must", "paragraphs": [ "para_217", "para_218" ] }, { "title": "Inc., 581 U.S. 433, 439 (2017) (citation omitted). We will examine standing as to", "paragraphs": [ "para_220", "para_221" ] }, { "title": "We begin with Empower Missouri. The district court, relying on the Supreme", "paragraphs": [ "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227" ] }, { "title": "However, the Supreme Court recently rejected such an expansive reading of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Havens in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024), where", "paragraphs": [ "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240" ] }, { "title": "Fair Housing Act after it provided false information regarding apartment availability", "paragraphs": [ "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246" ] }, { "title": "(citation omitted). Thus, because “Havens’s actions directly affected and interfered", "paragraphs": [ "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251" ] }, { "title": "Although Plaintiffs contend that Bax’s conduct frustrates Empower Missouri’s “core", "paragraphs": [ "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259" ] }, { "title": "2026) (holding that an organization has suffered an injury in fact when a regulation", "paragraphs": [ "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264" ] }, { "title": "Although Plaintiffs argue that “Empower has not spent its way into standing”", "paragraphs": [ "para_266", "para_267", "para_268" ] }, { "title": "Medicine did not turn on whether the funds were newly raised. Rather, without an", "paragraphs": [ "para_270", "para_271" ] }, { "title": "Empower has done nothing more than “expend[] money to gather information and", "paragraphs": [ "para_273", "para_274", "para_275" ] }, { "title": "As to the individual plaintiffs, Bax argues that they fail to satisfy the", "paragraphs": [ "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283" ] }, { "title": "First, we address whether Holmes and Davis have standing to assert their due", "paragraphs": [ "para_285", "para_286", "para_287" ] }, { "title": "F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir. 2006), or that they are experiencing “continuing, present", "paragraphs": [ "para_289" ] }, { "title": "U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974). Ongoing harm is assessed at the time the complaint is", "paragraphs": [ "para_291" ] }, { "title": "When they filed the complaint, DSS had denied Holmes’s and Davis’s applications", "paragraphs": [ "para_293" ] }, { "title": "Davis did not receive the food assistance they were entitled to. That is ongoing", "paragraphs": [ "para_295" ] }, { "title": "Cir. 2018) (explaining that a plaintiff has standing when past exposure to illegal", "paragraphs": [ "para_297", "para_298" ] }, { "title": "Next, we examine whether Holmes’s and Davis’s injuries are redressable by", "paragraphs": [ "para_300", "para_301", "para_302" ] }, { "title": "Legal Def. Fund v. Reynolds, 89 F.4th 1071, 1078 (8th Cir. 2024) (second alteration", "paragraphs": [ "para_304" ] }, { "title": "Bax contends that Holmes and Davis do not satisfy the redressability", "paragraphs": [ "para_306" ] }, { "title": "5At oral argument, counsel for the appellees clarified that Dallas does not", "paragraphs": [ "para_308", "para_309", "para_310" ] }, { "title": "Bax provide Holmes an interview,6 a declaratory judgment that DSS’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317" ] }, { "title": "SNAP application.”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The district court concluded that Plaintiffs’ requested relief would redress", "paragraphs": [ "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323" ] }, { "title": "Holmes’s and Davis’s injury by remedying and preventing any future erroneous", "paragraphs": [ "para_325" ] }, { "title": "Although Bax contends that the district court erred by failing to address", "paragraphs": [ "para_327", "para_328" ] }, { "title": "Whether Plaintiffs’ requested relief is overbroad is distinct from the antecedent", "paragraphs": [ "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333" ] }, { "title": "Cir. 2023) (Gruender, J., concurring) (“Redressability does not require that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339" ] }, { "title": "Grp., Inc., 821 F.3d 723, 731 (6th Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, we conclude that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Holmes and Davis satisfied the redressability prong and have standing to pursue their", "paragraphs": [ "para_342", "para_343" ] }, { "title": "Bax additionally contends that Holmes’s and Davis’s due process claims are", "paragraphs": [ "para_345", "para_346", "para_347" ] }, { "title": "Standing and mootness, while related, are separate inquiries. “The Supreme", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court has repeatedly described the mootness doctrine as ‘the doctrine of standing set", "paragraphs": [ "para_350", "para_351" ] }, { "title": "McCarthy v. Ozark Sch. Dist., 359 F.3d 1029, 1035 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation", "paragraphs": [ "para_353" ] }, { "title": "Rather a case becomes moot ‘if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_355", "para_356" ] }, { "title": "Hous. Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 419 F.3d 729, 740 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[A]", "paragraphs": [ "para_358", "para_359" ] }, { "title": "Bax argues that Holmes’s and Davis’s claims are moot because they have", "paragraphs": [ "para_361", "para_362" ] }, { "title": "Holmes and Davis currently receive SNAP benefits, but Bax mistakes the burden", "paragraphs": [ "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370" ] }, { "title": "Without this waiver in the record, we cannot assess its impact on Holmes’s and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Davis’s claims. Moreover, as Plaintiffs point out, even though Dallas is disabled", "paragraphs": [ "para_373", "para_374", "para_375" ] }, { "title": "Holmes’s and Davis’s due process rights “could not be reasonably expected to", "paragraphs": [ "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380" ] }, { "title": "Next, we address whether Dallas has standing for his ADA failure to", "paragraphs": [ "para_382" ] }, { "title": "In 2021, Dallas informed DSS he would need an accommodation because he", "paragraphs": [ "para_384", "para_385" ] }, { "title": "2023, he called DSS around ten times seeking help completing his recertification", "paragraphs": [ "para_387", "para_388", "para_389" ] }, { "title": "But “[f]ailing to make a reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination”", "paragraphs": [ "para_391" ] }, { "title": "2022). Like Holmes and Davis, Dallas seeks prospective relief and because DSS", "paragraphs": [ "para_393" ] }, { "title": "7We find it unnecessary to address Holmes and Davis’s claim that Bax’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399" ] }, { "title": "To determine if Dallas’s injury is redressable, we must assess whether “a", "paragraphs": [ "para_401" ] }, { "title": "F.4th at 1077 (citation omitted). As with Holmes and Davis on their due process", "paragraphs": [ "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408" ] }, { "title": "Bax again argues that Dallas’s requested relief is overbroad such that he does", "paragraphs": [ "para_410", "para_411", "para_412" ] }, { "title": "Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 254 (2010) (“Subject-matter jurisdiction . . . presents", "paragraphs": [ "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417" ] }, { "title": "Bax additionally argues that Dallas’s ADA claim has become moot. Although", "paragraphs": [ "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs point out, as recently as May 2025, Bax was unable to determine the", "paragraphs": [ "para_430" ] }, { "title": "Accordingly, we conclude that Bax has not met her “formidable burden” under the", "paragraphs": [ "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435" ] }, { "title": "To the extent that Holmes and Davis assert that DSS had inadequate", "paragraphs": [ "para_437" ] }, { "title": "All ADA claims must be tethered to one’s individual experience. “There is no", "paragraphs": [ "para_439", "para_440", "para_441" ] }, { "title": "2011), aff’d sub nom. J.B. ex rel. Bailey v. Avilla R-XIII Sch. Dist., 721 F.3d 588", "paragraphs": [ "para_443", "para_444" ] }, { "title": "Finally, Bax cursorily argues that the Eleventh Amendment bars this Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449" ] }, { "title": "The Ex parte Young doctrine provides “a narrow exception” to sovereign", "paragraphs": [ "para_451", "para_452" ] }, { "title": "Bax argues that this case is analogous to Filyaw, she is wrong. In Filyaw, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457" ] }, { "title": "Amendment because she failed to allege ongoing harm, as she received an", "paragraphs": [ "para_459", "para_460", "para_461" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs filed their complaint, they were experiencing ongoing harm—Holmes’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466" ] }, { "title": "As the individual plaintiffs have cleared the Article III jurisdictional hurdles", "paragraphs": [ "para_468", "para_469", "para_470" ] }, { "title": "We start with Plaintiffs’ claims under the SNAP Act. In Counts I and II of", "paragraphs": [ "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477" ] }, { "title": "Bax argues that this was in error because the SNAP Act does not create rights", "paragraphs": [ "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483" ] }, { "title": "The Supreme Court has strictly limited the circumstances under which a", "paragraphs": [ "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488" ] }, { "title": "S. Atl., 606 U.S. 357, 365 (2025) (citation omitted). While “federal legislation seeks", "paragraphs": [ "para_490", "para_491", "para_492" ] }, { "title": "To prove that a statute is enforceable under § 1983, “a plaintiff must show that", "paragraphs": [ "para_494", "para_495" ] }, { "title": "(citation omitted) (first and second alteration in original). This test is “‘stringent’", "paragraphs": [ "para_497" ] }, { "title": "SNAP Act—are “especially unlikely” to confer an enforceable right. Id. at 369; see", "paragraphs": [ "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504" ] }, { "title": "Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski, 599 U.S. 166 (2023)—where", "paragraphs": [ "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513" ] }, { "title": "The district court concluded that “[c]ourts commonly order heads of SNAP", "paragraphs": [ "para_515", "para_516" ] }, { "title": "Courts historically have held that Spending Clause statutes “create[d] an enforceable", "paragraphs": [ "para_518", "para_519" ] }, { "title": "However, we have since observed that “the governing standard for identifying", "paragraphs": [ "para_521" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the SNAP Act they sued", "paragraphs": [ "para_523", "para_524" ] }, { "title": "Section 2014(a) states, in part, that “[p]articipation in [SNAP] shall be limited", "paragraphs": [ "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537" ] }, { "title": "Section 2020(e)(2)(B) provides, in part, that a state agency “shall provide", "paragraphs": [ "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549" ] }, { "title": "To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that a private right of action independent of", "paragraphs": [ "para_551" ] }, { "title": "Although determining “whether a statutory violation may be enforced through", "paragraphs": [ "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556" ] }, { "title": "(emphasis omitted) (citation omitted). Because we determined that Congress did not", "paragraphs": [ "para_558", "para_559" ] }, { "title": "Thus, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to Counts", "paragraphs": [ "para_561", "para_562" ] }, { "title": "Next, we address whether the district court erred in determining that Bax’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_564", "para_565" ] }, { "title": "Holmes and Davis allege that Bax violated their due process rights by", "paragraphs": [ "para_567", "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573", "para_574" ] }, { "title": "(alteration in original) (citation omitted). The parties agree that SNAP benefits are", "paragraphs": [ "para_576", "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580" ] }, { "title": "(citation omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that SNAP applicants have a protected", "paragraphs": [ "para_582", "para_583" ] }, { "title": "Next, we must consider whether the process Missouri provided Holmes and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Davis regarding their SNAP application denials was adequate. Plaintiffs do not", "paragraphs": [ "para_586", "para_587", "para_588" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court has explained that courts must consider three factors when", "paragraphs": [ "para_590" ] }, { "title": "First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action;", "paragraphs": [ "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595" ] }, { "title": "8Bax assumes “without conceding” that applicants have a property interest in", "paragraphs": [ "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602" ] }, { "title": "As to the first factor, the district court held that Holmes’s and Davis’s private", "paragraphs": [ "para_604", "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608" ] }, { "title": "Regarding the second factor, the district court determined that “arbitrary", "paragraphs": [ "para_610", "para_611" ] }, { "title": "Missouri’s post-deprivation review process—providing hearings to those", "paragraphs": [ "para_613", "para_614", "para_615", "para_616", "para_617" ] }, { "title": "Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), the Supreme Court held that post-deprivation remedies", "paragraphs": [ "para_619", "para_620", "para_621", "para_622", "para_623" ] }, { "title": "As to the third factor, Bax argues that the district court failed to consider the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Government’s burden. Although requiring Bax to provide applicants with", "paragraphs": [ "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630" ] }, { "title": "As such, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_632", "para_633" ] }, { "title": "Next, we address whether the district court erred in granting summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_635" ] }, { "title": "To establish that the defendant violated Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must", "paragraphs": [ "para_637" ] }, { "title": "SNAP benefits, or otherwise subjected to discrimination by the defendant; and (3)", "paragraphs": [ "para_639" ] }, { "title": "684, 688 (8th Cir. 2020). Additionally, “a plaintiff must prove, among other", "paragraphs": [ "para_641" ] }, { "title": "Powley v. Rail Crew Xpress, LLC, 25 F.4th 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2022) (alteration in", "paragraphs": [ "para_643" ] }, { "title": "Holmes alleges that she was deprived of both a reasonable accommodation", "paragraphs": [ "para_645", "para_646" ] }, { "title": "Further, she does not identify why her alleged disabilities—cancer and chronic", "paragraphs": [ "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655", "para_656" ] }, { "title": "Regarding Dallas, it is undisputed that he is qualified for SNAP benefits and", "paragraphs": [ "para_658", "para_659", "para_660", "para_661", "para_662", "para_663", "para_664" ] }, { "title": "Finally, we address whether the relief granted by the district court was", "paragraphs": [ "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671" ] }, { "title": "For permanent injunctive relief to be appropriate, a plaintiff must show: (1)", "paragraphs": [ "para_673", "para_674", "para_675" ] }, { "title": "542 F.3d 224, 229 (8th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court concluded that Plaintiffs", "paragraphs": [ "para_677", "para_678", "para_679", "para_680" ] }, { "title": "9As explained earlier, we concluded that Plaintiffs did not show actual success", "paragraphs": [ "para_682", "para_683" ] }, { "title": "Bax argues that the district court erred by failing to consider whether Plaintiffs", "paragraphs": [ "para_685" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law before finding irreparable harm. See", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Taylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 403 F.3d 958, 967 (8th Cir. 2005) (“It", "paragraphs": [ "para_688", "para_689" ] }, { "title": "F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Irreparable harm occurs when a party has no", "paragraphs": [ "para_691", "para_692", "para_693" ] }, { "title": "Universal Title Ins. Co. v. United States, 942 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir. 1991) (“The", "paragraphs": [ "para_695", "para_696", "para_697", "para_698", "para_699" ] }, { "title": "Inc., 190 F.3d 924, 926 (8th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he basis of injunctive relief in the federal", "paragraphs": [ "para_701", "para_702" ] }, { "title": "Although “[w]e will not disturb a district court’s discretionary decision if such", "paragraphs": [ "para_704", "para_705" ] }, { "title": "LLC, 508 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir. 2007), the district court’s failure to consider", "paragraphs": [ "para_707", "para_708", "para_709", "para_710", "para_711" ] }, { "title": "Failure to consider the presence of an adequate remedy at law was not the only", "paragraphs": [ "para_713", "para_714", "para_715", "para_716", "para_717", "para_718" ] }, { "title": "Migrant Movement for Just. v. Bird, 157 F.4th 904, 930 (8th Cir. 2025)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“‘[U]niversal injunctions’—that is, injunctions that ‘prohibit enforcement of a law", "paragraphs": [ "para_721", "para_722" ] }, { "title": "Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 841 (2025) (“A universal injunction can be", "paragraphs": [ "para_724", "para_725", "para_726", "para_727", "para_728", "para_729", "para_730" ] }, { "title": "For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district", "paragraphs": [ "para_732", "para_733", "para_734", "para_735" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "For the Eighth Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "___________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "No. 25-1987", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "___________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "Mary Holmes; Empower Missouri; Denise Davis; Andrew Dallas", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs - Appellees", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Jessica Bax, in her official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Social Services", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Defendant - Appellant", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "------------------------------", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "National Health Law Program; Food Research & Action Center", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Amici on Behalf of Appellee(s)", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "____________", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Appeal from United States District Court", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "____________", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Submitted: April 15, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Filed: August 19, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "____________", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "____________", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "-2-", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "Several Missourians—Mary Holmes, Denise Davis, and Andrew", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Dallas—along with Empower Missouri, a nonprofit organization that purports to", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "guarantee access to adequate nutrition (collectively, Plaintiffs) raise various claims", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "against Jessica Bax1 in her official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "of Social Services (DSS) for her alleged inadequate administration of the", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) in Missouri. Specifically,", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs allege that Bax’s policies, practices, and procedures violate various", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "provisions of the SNAP Act, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The parties filed cross motions for", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "summary judgment. The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "judgment and denied Bax’s motion. The district court ordered Bax to submit a", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "proposed plan to address the shortcomings in DSS’s administration of SNAP within", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "90 days, and it later entered a remedial order and final judgment. Bax appeals both", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "the district court’s summary judgment and remedial orders. Having jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s grant", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "of summary judgment, vacate the permanent injunction, and remand.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "I.", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "Congress established SNAP “to safeguard the health and well-being of the", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "Nation’s population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households.”", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "7 U.S.C. § 2011. This federally-funded and state-administered program provides", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "eligible households with a monthly benefit for food purchases. See 7 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "§ 2014(a). In Missouri, DSS is solely responsible for administering SNAP.", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "1Plaintiffs initially filed this lawsuit against Robert Knodell, the Acting", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services. He has since been replaced", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "by Jessica Bax.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "-3-", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "To receive SNAP benefits, an individual must submit an initial application", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "and complete an interview. Once DSS registers an application, it instructs the", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "applicant to contact its call center within five days to interview.2 If an applicant does", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "not interview within five days after applying, DSS notifies the applicant that an", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "interview must be completed within 30 days or his application will be denied. DSS", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "automatically denies an application if an individual does not complete an interview", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "within 30 days of submission, regardless of an applicant’s efforts to schedule an", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "interview.", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "To maintain SNAP benefits, individuals must recertify their SNAP eligibility,", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "typically on an annual basis. Recertification requires individuals to complete an", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "application, interview, and undergo further verification if they report certain", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "changes. Bax contends that DSS has a waiver from the federal government that", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "allows it to “automatically forgo the interview requirement at recertification for", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "households with no earned income in which all adult members are elderly or", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "disabled.” However, this waiver is not part of the record in this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "In January 2022, Mary Holmes called DSS three times to request a SNAP", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "application, but no one answered the phone. She then paid a family member to drive", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "her to a resource center,3 submitted her application in-person, and asked to be", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "interviewed that day. DSS refused her request and told her that someone would call", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "her in the next few days. She answered a call from DSS the next day but was never", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "connected to a representative. Over the following month, she called DSS at least", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "eleven times attempting to interview. Despite enduring numerous holds of over two", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "hours, she was never connected to a staff member. And in February 2022, DSS", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "2Applicants are also permitted to interview in-person. Once requested, the", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "interview must be scheduled within five days.", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "3DSS operates resource centers throughout Missouri where applicants are", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "supposed to be able to “submit applications and supporting documentation, ask", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "questions about their applications and benefits, and be interviewed as part of the", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "application process.”", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "-4-", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "denied her application for failure to interview. After Plaintiffs filed this suit, Holmes", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "received an interview, and she was approved for SNAP benefits on March 20, 2023.", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "Andrew Dallas has epilepsy, which impacts his daily functioning. Relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "to this lawsuit, he has received SNAP benefits since at least 2021. In December", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "2021, DSS received a document from Dallas entitled “Food Stamp Change Report.”", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "In this report, Dallas explained that he has epilepsy and that he “cannot understand", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "like normal people do. Please help! . . . I am disabled.” DSS understood this note", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "to be a request for a reasonable accommodation, but Dallas did not need to complete", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "any forms at that time to continue receiving SNAP benefits. In January 2023, DSS", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "mailed Dallas SNAP recertification paperwork and did not provide him any", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "assistance. In early February 2023, Dallas called DSS roughly ten times to ask for", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "help completing his recertification paperwork. He never connected with a", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "representative due to long wait times and the main menu language prompts. Like", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "Holmes, after joining this lawsuit, Dallas received an interview and was approved", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "for SNAP benefits. His benefits never lapsed.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "In November 2022, Denise Davis applied for SNAP benefits online, but DSS", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "did not register her application.4 In December 2022, she submitted a second SNAP", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "application and called DSS several times a week attempting to interview. Like", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "Holmes and Dallas, she never spoke to a DSS employee because DSS repeatedly", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "deflected and disconnected her calls. More than once, she waited on hold for over", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "two hours before DSS’s automated system disconnected her call due to high call", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "volume. Despite her repeated attempts to interview, DSS denied her application for", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "failure to interview. She then submitted a third application. Davis called DSS at", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "least thirteen times and visited a resource center to try to interview, but again, she", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "never reached anyone at DSS. Like Holmes and Dallas, after joining this lawsuit,", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "she received an interview and was approved for SNAP benefits. Although Holmes,", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "Davis, and Dallas all now receive SNAP benefits, they anticipate needing this", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "4DSS asserts that her application contained an incorrect social security", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "number.", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "-5-", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "assistance for years to come which will require dealing with DSS and its benefits", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "administration system.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "Empower Missouri is the final plaintiff in this lawsuit. It is a nonprofit", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "organization that describes itself as seeking to ensure that all Missourians “have", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "access to adequate nutrition, quality healthcare, decent housing, and appropriate", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "education.” It contends that it devotes significant time and energy to “provide[]", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "resources and information to anti-hunger advocates and communicate[] with DSS", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "regarding agency failures in Missouri’s administration of SNAP.” From 2021 to", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "2023, it spent $96,000 on addressing issues that arose from DSS’s administration of", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "SNAP.", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs bring four claims against Bax. They assert that her policies,", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "practices, and procedures wrongfully deny applicants access to SNAP in violation", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2014(a) and 2020(e)(2)(B) and their accompanying regulations; fail", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "to ensure Missourians are able to apply for SNAP benefits on the first day that they", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "contact DSS in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(2)(B), and deprive Plaintiffs of fair", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "access to SNAP benefits in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Clause. Finally, they contend that Bax’s actions, inactions, policies, practices, and", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "procedures fail to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the ADA.", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Regarding declaratory", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "relief, they request that the court declare as unlawful Bax’s policies and practices of", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "wrongfully denying initial and recertification SNAP applications; failing or refusing", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "to allow households to apply for SNAP on the first day they contact DSS; subjecting", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "SNAP applicants to arbitrary and inconsistent application processes that result in", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "wrongful denials of benefits; excluding Plaintiffs from participation in the benefits,", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "programs, services, and activities provided by DSS because of their disabilities;", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "utilizing and adopting administrative practices that discriminate against Plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "based on disability; and failing to adopt ADA grievance procedures.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "-6-", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "They request multiple forms of injunctive relief. First, they seek an order that", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "Bax provide Holmes with an interview within three days. Second, they ask that the", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "court preliminarily enjoin DSS to maintain in-person DSS resource center operations", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "in compliance with the SNAP Act and the ADA. Regarding permanent injunctive", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "relief, they seek that Bax be enjoined from making any changes to DSS facility", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "operations—including hours and staffing—until she adopts statewide policies to", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "ensure that such changes do not violate the rights of SNAP applicants. They also", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "seek that Bax cease denying SNAP applications for eligible individuals who have", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "not been provided a meaningful opportunity to complete the application process.", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "They also request that she adopt, implement, and monitor statewide policies and", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "procedures that (1) guarantee all applicants have a meaningful opportunity to", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "complete all the SNAP application requirements on the first day they contact DSS,", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "(2) ensure that applicants and recipients with disabilities are provided with", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "reasonable accommodations, (3) notify SNAP applicants and recipients about the", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "ADA’s and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act’s nondiscrimination requirements,", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "and (4) provide a grievance procedure for prompt and equitable resolution of ADA", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "and Section 504 complaints. Finally, they request that Bax provide them with", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "reasonable accommodations as appropriate.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argued that", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "Bax violated the SNAP Act by wrongfully denying their applications for failure to", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "interview and preventing them from applying on the first day they contacted DSS.", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "Additionally, Holmes and Davis contended that Bax violated their due process rights", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "and Dallas and Holmes contended that Bax violated their rights under the ADA. Bax", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "countered that no Plaintiff satisfied Article III standing as Empower Missouri did", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "not allege an injury and the individual plaintiffs’ claims are not redressable. In any", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "case, she argued that the individual plaintiffs’ claims were moot. She further", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "asserted that the SNAP Act does not provide a private right of action, and even if it", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "did, DSS’s policies and operations do not violate it. Finally, she argued that she did", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "not violate Plaintiffs’ due process rights or their rights under the ADA.", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "-7-", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and denied Bax’s motion. The", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "district court first concluded that Plaintiffs had Article III standing because they each", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "“established an injury ‘that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "decision.’” It reasoned that the individual plaintiffs are at substantial risk of losing", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "their SNAP benefits and that Empower Missouri has been forced to divert resources", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "because of DSS’s unlawful policies and procedures. Because DSS’s practices and", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "policies have not changed, it concluded that Plaintiffs’ claims are not moot.", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "Turning to the merits, the district court held that Bax’s wrongful denials of", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs’ SNAP applications violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "Clause. It reasoned that Plaintiffs have a protected property interest in SNAP", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "benefits and DSS’s wrongful denial of their applications for failure to interview", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "deprived them of this benefit for which they were otherwise eligible. Further, it", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "concluded that Bax violated the ADA by denying Dallas and Holmes meaningful", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "access to SNAP because of their respective disabilities.", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "The district court determined that permanent injunctive relief—requiring Bax", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "to enact policies and procedures in compliance with the SNAP Act, the Due Process", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "Clause, and the ADA—was appropriate. The district court ordered Bax to file with", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "the court monthly statewide statistical reports regarding its application processing.", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "It required that these reports also be filed with Missouri’s legislative and executive", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "branch members. Bax immediately appealed this order; however, we dismissed the", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there was not yet a final judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "The district court then entered its remedial order and final judgment. It", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "ordered that Bax “take whatever steps were necessary to reduce the average wait", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "time . . . so that 90% of callers have no more than a 20-minute wait time” and “bring", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "the number of applications which are rejected for failure to interview to no more", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "than 20% of all applications.” The order also required Bax to implement 26", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "additional operational requirements. Bax appeals the district court’s summary", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "judgment and remedial orders.", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "-8-", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "II.", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "On appeal, Bax argues that we lack Article III jurisdiction and that the district", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "court erred in concluding otherwise. She first contends that no Plaintiff has standing", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "as Empower Missouri did not establish an injury and the individual plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "requested relief fails to satisfy the redressability element because it is overbroad.", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "She additionally argues that the individual plaintiffs’ claims are moot. We review", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "standing and mootness determinations and grants of summary judgment de novo.", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "See City of Kennett v. EPA, 887 F.3d 424, 430 (8th Cir. 2018); Hillesheim v.", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 953 F.3d 1059, 1061 (8th Cir. 2020).", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "“[S]tanding is a threshold inquiry into federal court jurisdiction, [so] we", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "begin . . . our analysis there.” Ojogwu v. Rodenburg L. Firm, 26 F.4th 457, 461 (8th", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Pursuant to Article III’s case-or-controversy", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "requirement, a plaintiff must have standing to bring a lawsuit. See Christian Lab.", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "Ass’n v. City of Duluth, 142 F.4th 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2025). “[T]o establish", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "standing, a plaintiff must show (i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is concrete,", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.”", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). “[A] plaintiff must", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "is sought[,]” as “standing is not dispensed in gross.” Town of Chester v. Laroe Ests.,", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "Inc., 581 U.S. 433, 439 (2017) (citation omitted). We will examine standing as to", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "each plaintiff and claim in turn.", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "A.", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "We begin with Empower Missouri. The district court, relying on the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "Court’s decision in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982),", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "determined that Empower Missouri adequately alleged an injury and therefore has", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "standing because it only needed to “show direct injury by a diversion of", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "organizational resources to identify or counteract the allegedly unlawful action.”", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "-9-", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "However, the Supreme Court recently rejected such an expansive reading of", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "Havens in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024), where", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "it concluded that medical associations did not allege an injury from costs they", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "incurred opposing the FDA’s actions. Id. at 394. The Supreme Court reasoned that", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "an organization “cannot spend its way into standing simply by expending money to", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "gather information and advocate against the defendant’s action.” Id. Indeed, if an", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "organization could establish standing by “divert[ing] its resources in response to a", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "defendant’s actions,” that “would mean that all the organizations in America would", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "have standing to challenge almost every federal policy that they dislike, provided", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "they spend a single dollar opposing those policies.” Id. at 395. The Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "distinguished Havens, noting that it “was an unusual case, and [that it] has been", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "careful not to extend the Havens holding beyond its context.” Id. at 396. In Havens,", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "a housing counseling organization, HOME, sued Havens Realty for violating the", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "Fair Housing Act after it provided false information regarding apartment availability", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "to HOME’s black employees. Id. at 395. The Supreme Court held that HOME had", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "standing because it “not only was an issue-advocacy organization, but also operated", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "a housing counseling service,” and thus when Havens Realty gave HOME’s black", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "employees false information, it “perceptibly impaired HOME’s ability to provide", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "counseling and referral services for low- and moderate-income homeseekers.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "(citation omitted). Thus, because “Havens’s actions directly affected and interfered", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "with HOME’s core business activities—not dissimilar to a retailer who sues a", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "manufacturer for selling defective goods to the retailer,” the Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "concluded that HOME adequately alleged an injury for standing purposes. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "Empower Missouri’s injury is not akin to the one asserted in Havens.", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "Although Plaintiffs contend that Bax’s conduct frustrates Empower Missouri’s “core", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "business activities,” its alleged injury consists solely of the time and money it spent", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "responding to Bax’s administration of SNAP. This is not enough to establish", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "standing. See All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. at 395. Empower Missouri", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "provides no services or interview assistance to SNAP benefit applicants, nor did it", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "assist the individual plaintiffs in this matter. In its own words, “[t]hat’s not Empower", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "Missouri’s model.” Cf. Get Loud Ark. v. Jester, 171 F.4th 1058, 1064 (8th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "-10-", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "2026) (holding that an organization has suffered an injury in fact when a regulation", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "forbade use of “its online registration tool, which was an important element of its", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "core business activities”). On the contrary, Empower Missouri’s model is to spend", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "money opposing Bax’s allegedly unlawful practices. Such self-inflicted advocacy", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "costs are not a cognizable injury for Article III standing in this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "Although Plaintiffs argue that “Empower has not spent its way into standing”", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "because it “did not raise additional funds or grow its budget to oppose [DSS’s]", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "wrongful SNAP denials resulting from its dysfunctional call center,” this fact is", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "immaterial. As Bax notes, the Supreme Court’s decision in Alliance for Hippocratic", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "Medicine did not turn on whether the funds were newly raised. Rather, without an", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "injury to an organization’s core business activities, advocacy efforts are insufficient", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "to establish standing. See All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. at 394. Because", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "Empower has done nothing more than “expend[] money to gather information and", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "advocate against [Bax]’s action[s], it did not allege a cognizable injury.” Id. It", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "should be dismissed from this suit for want of standing.", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "B.", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "As to the individual plaintiffs, Bax argues that they fail to satisfy the", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "redressability element of standing because “there is a ‘fatal disconnect between", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "the[ir] alleged injury and the sweeping relief they requested.’” Additionally, she", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "argues that their claims are moot, as each of them has received complete relief and", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "is unlikely to suffer future harm.", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "-11-", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "i.", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "a.", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "First, we address whether Holmes and Davis have standing to assert their due", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "process claims.5 They seek prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. To satisfy", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "the injury requirement, “plaintiffs must [either] show they are likely to suffer future", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "injury that will be remedied by the relief sought,” Elizabeth M. v. Montenez, 458", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir. 2006), or that they are experiencing “continuing, present", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "adverse effects” from “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct,” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974). Ongoing harm is assessed at the time the complaint is", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "filed. See Farella v. Benton Cnty. Dist. Ct., 176 F.4th 562, 567 (8th Cir. 2026).", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "When they filed the complaint, DSS had denied Holmes’s and Davis’s applications", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "for failure to interview despite their repeated attempts to do so. Thus, Holmes and", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "Davis did not receive the food assistance they were entitled to. That is ongoing", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "harm. See In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 893 F.3d 1047, 1055 (8th", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "Cir. 2018) (explaining that a plaintiff has standing when past exposure to illegal", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "conduct “is accompanied by ‘continuing, present adverse effects’” (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "omitted)).", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "Next, we examine whether Holmes’s and Davis’s injuries are redressable by", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "the relief sought in the complaint. “Redressability exists when a favorable decision", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "will relieve the plaintiffs of a discrete injury . . . or if the risk of injury ‘would be", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "reduced to some extent if [the plaintiffs] received the relief they seek.’” Animal", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "Legal Def. Fund v. Reynolds, 89 F.4th 1071, 1078 (8th Cir. 2024) (second alteration", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "in original) (citation omitted)).", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "Bax contends that Holmes and Davis do not satisfy the redressability", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "requirement as she maintains their request for relief is impermissibly overbroad as it", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "5At oral argument, counsel for the appellees clarified that Dallas does not", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "assert a due process claim in this matter.", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "-12-", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "would require DSS to overhaul its SNAP benefits system. That relief includes: that", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "Bax provide Holmes an interview,6 a declaratory judgment that DSS’s", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "administration of SNAP results in wrongful denial of benefits, a preliminary", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "injunction requiring Bax to maintain in-person DSS resource center operations in", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "compliance with federal law, and a permanent injunction requiring Bax to, among", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "other things, “[a]dopt, implement, and monitor statewide and systematic policies and", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "procedures to ensure that all applicants for SNAP have a meaningful opportunity to", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "complete a SNAP interview, required verifications, and all other elements of the", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "SNAP application.”", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "The district court concluded that Plaintiffs’ requested relief would redress", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "their injuries. We agree. Plaintiffs requested relief ranging from narrow,", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "individualized remedies—such as Holmes’s request for an interview—to broader", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "systemic reforms of the entire DSS SNAP benefit system. Whatever the ultimate", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "propriety of these remedies, each form of requested relief would, if granted, redress", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "Holmes’s and Davis’s injury by remedying and preventing any future erroneous", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "denial of SNAP benefits.", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "Although Bax contends that the district court erred by failing to address", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "whether Plaintiffs’ requested relief was appropriately tailored to their injuries, that", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "argument concerns the permissible scope of relief, not the court’s jurisdiction.", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "Whether Plaintiffs’ requested relief is overbroad is distinct from the antecedent", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "jurisdictional question. See Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 801 (2022) (“[T]he", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "question whether a court has jurisdiction to grant a particular remedy is different", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "from the question whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a particular class of", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "claims.”); see also Pharm. Rsch. & Mfrs. of Am. v. Williams, 64 F.4th 932, 951 (8th", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "Cir. 2023) (Gruender, J., concurring) (“Redressability does not require that the", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "plaintiff actually be entitled to the relief sought; it is enough that the requested relief,", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "if granted, would redress the plaintiff’s injury.” (quoting Cranpark, Inc. v. Rogers", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "6Because DSS interviewed Holmes shortly after the complaint was filed,", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs no longer seek this relief.", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "-13-", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "Grp., Inc., 821 F.3d 723, 731 (6th Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, we conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "Holmes and Davis satisfied the redressability prong and have standing to pursue their", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "b.", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "Bax additionally contends that Holmes’s and Davis’s due process claims are", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "moot because they received interviews, were approved for SNAP benefits, and will", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "not have to re-interview because they qualify for the waiver for elderly and disabled", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "individuals.", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "Standing and mootness, while related, are separate inquiries. “The Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "Court has repeatedly described the mootness doctrine as ‘the doctrine of standing set", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).’”", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "McCarthy v. Ozark Sch. Dist., 359 F.3d 1029, 1035 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "omitted). “Mere voluntary cessation of a challenged action does not moot a case.", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "Rather a case becomes moot ‘if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” Strutton", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549, 556 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); see also Charleston", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "Hous. Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 419 F.3d 729, 740 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[A]", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.” (citation omitted)).", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "Bax argues that Holmes’s and Davis’s claims are moot because they have", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "received SNAP benefits and have not shown that they will have to re-interview", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "because they qualify for the elderly and disabled waiver. The parties agree that", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "Holmes and Davis currently receive SNAP benefits, but Bax mistakes the burden", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "associated with the voluntary cessation doctrine. It is her “formidable burden” to", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "show that “it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "reasonably be expected to recur.” LaBatte v. Gangle, 161 F.4th 1109, 1117 (8th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "2025) (citation omitted). The elderly and disabled waiver is not part of the record,", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "-14-", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "and it is unclear if it has ever been put in writing. Indeed, Bax conceded that it is", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "not contained in a regulation but rather is “built into the [agency’s] processes.”", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "Without this waiver in the record, we cannot assess its impact on Holmes’s and", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "Davis’s claims. Moreover, as Plaintiffs point out, even though Dallas is disabled", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "and allegedly qualifies for the waiver, DSS required him to interview for his SNAP", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "benefit recertification in 2023, showing that the waiver is, at the very least, applied", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "inconsistently. Because Bax did not satisfy her “formidable burden” of proving that", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "Holmes’s and Davis’s due process rights “could not be reasonably expected to", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "recur,” their claims are not moot.7 Id. As such, Holmes’s and Davis’s due process", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "claim satisfies the Article III jurisdictional requirements.", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "ii.", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "a.", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "Next, we address whether Dallas has standing for his ADA failure to", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "accommodate claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "In 2021, Dallas informed DSS he would need an accommodation because he", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "suffers from epilepsy. In January 2023, DSS mailed Dallas SNAP recertification", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "paperwork but did not offer him any assistance in completing his forms. In February", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "2023, he called DSS around ten times seeking help completing his recertification", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "paperwork, but he was never connected to a representative. After Plaintiffs filed the", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "complaint, Dallas received an interview and DSS approved his recertification. Bax", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "asserts that Dallas did not suffer any harm because he never lost his SNAP benefits.", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "But “[f]ailing to make a reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination”", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "under the ADA. Mobley v. St. Luke’s Health Sys., Inc., 53 F.4th 452, 456 (8th Cir.", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "2022). Like Holmes and Davis, Dallas seeks prospective relief and because DSS", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "had failed to accommodate him when the complaint was filed, he adequately alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "7We find it unnecessary to address Holmes and Davis’s claim that Bax’s", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "conduct is capable of repetition and likely to evade review as the voluntary cessation", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "doctrine preserves their injuries.", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "-15-", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "“continuing, present adverse effects” from DSS’s “illegal conduct.” O’Shea, 414", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "U.S. at 495-96. Accordingly, Dallas satisfies the injury requirement.", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "To determine if Dallas’s injury is redressable, we must assess whether “a", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "favorable decision will likely redress [his] injury.” Animal Legal Def. Fund, 89", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "F.4th at 1077 (citation omitted). As with Holmes and Davis on their due process", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "claims, Dallas seeks broad relief. He requests that, among other things, Bax", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "“[a]dopt, implement, and monitor statewide and systemic policies and procedures to", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "ensure that applicants and recipients with disabilities are routinely provided with", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "appropriate identification or screening,” and that applicants be notified regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "“the nondiscrimination requirements of Title II of the ADA” and be given access to", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "a “grievance procedure” for “complaints of ADA Title II violations.”", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "Bax again argues that Dallas’s requested relief is overbroad such that he does", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "not satisfy the redressability requirement. However, we conclude that his requested", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "remedies would redress his failure to receive a reasonable accommodation. His", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "entitlement to these remedies is immaterial to our jurisdiction. See Morrison v. Nat’l", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 254 (2010) (“Subject-matter jurisdiction . . . presents", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "an issue quite separate from the question whether the allegations the plaintiff makes", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "entitle him to relief.”). As Dallas satisfies the redressability element, he has standing", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "to maintain his ADA claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "b.", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "Bax additionally argues that Dallas’s ADA claim has become moot. Although", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "she admits that DSS did not have an ADA policy when Plaintiffs filed the complaint,", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "she claims that DSS has since “implemented more robust measures to ensure", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "individuals are able to notify Defendant of disabilities and request", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "accommodations.” However, as we explained above, “voluntary cessation of a", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "challenged action does not moot a case. Rather a case becomes moot [only] ‘if", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” Strutton, 668 F.3d at 556 (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "-16-", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "omitted). The record does not show that these new policies have resulted in", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "individuals actually receiving accommodations after submitting a request. And as", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs point out, as recently as May 2025, Bax was unable to determine the", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "number of applicants who had requested accommodations under this new system.", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "Accordingly, we conclude that Bax has not met her “formidable burden” under the", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "voluntary cessation doctrine, as it is not “absolutely clear” that ADA violations", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "“could not reasonably be expected to recur.” LaBatte, 161 F.4th at 1117. Dallas’s", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "ADA failure to accommodate claim is not moot.", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "C.", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "To the extent that Holmes and Davis assert that DSS had inadequate", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "procedures for individuals with disabilities as required by the ADA, this claim fails.", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "All ADA claims must be tethered to one’s individual experience. “There is no", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "independent cause of action under either the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA for", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "failing to provide adequate procedures.” A.L.A. ex rel. Liberty v. Avilla R-XIII Sch.", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "Dist., No. 10-5054-CV-SW-SWH, 2011 WL 6093301, at *7 n.7 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 7,", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "2011), aff’d sub nom. J.B. ex rel. Bailey v. Avilla R-XIII Sch. Dist., 721 F.3d 588", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "(8th Cir. 2013).", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "III.", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "Finally, Bax cursorily argues that the Eleventh Amendment bars this Court", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. Although this issue was not", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "raised below, because this defense “sufficiently partakes of the nature of a", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "jurisdictional bar,” it does not have to be raised in the trial court for us to consider it", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "on appeal. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 n.1 (1978).", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "The Ex parte Young doctrine provides “a narrow exception” to sovereign", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "immunity when a plaintiff alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "prospective relief. Filyaw v. Corsi, 150 F.4th 936, 941 (8th Cir. 2025). Although", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "Bax argues that this case is analogous to Filyaw, she is wrong. In Filyaw, the", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "-17-", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "plaintiff alleged that the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "deprived her of due process by terminating her Medicaid benefits without proper", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "notice. Id. at 939. We concluded that her claim was barred by the Eleventh", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "Amendment because she failed to allege ongoing harm, as she received an", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "inadequate notice at “a discrete point in the past,” “had an opportunity for both a", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "pre-and post-termination hearing,” and was not at risk of receiving the same", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "inadequate notice in the future. Id. at 945-46. Dissimilarly, here, at the time that", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs filed their complaint, they were experiencing ongoing harm—Holmes’s", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "and Davis’s SNAP applications were denied and DSS failed to provide Dallas a", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "reasonable accommodation. And Plaintiffs seek prospective relief. As such, the", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "Eleventh Amendment does not bar their claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "IV.", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "As the individual plaintiffs have cleared the Article III jurisdictional hurdles", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "as to their due process and ADA failure to accommodate claims, we next consider", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "whether the district court erred in granting Plaintiffs summary judgment on their", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "claims under the SNAP Act, Due Process Clause, and ADA.", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "We start with Plaintiffs’ claims under the SNAP Act. In Counts I and II of", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "their complaint, Plaintiffs allege Bax’s policies, practices, and procedures of", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "wrongfully denying applicants for Missouri’s SNAP program and failing to ensure", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "that Missourians can submit a SNAP application on the first day they contact DSS", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "violate various provisions of the SNAP Act—7 U.S.C. §§ 2014(a), 2020(e)(2)(B)", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "and their implementing regulations. The district court concluded that Bax violated", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "these provisions and granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs as to these counts.", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "Bax argues that this was in error because the SNAP Act does not create rights", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "enforceable in private actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “This court reviews", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "de novo the district court’s decision regarding the existence of a federal right", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "enforceable under section 1983.” Ctr. for Special Needs Tr. Admin., Inc. v. Olson,", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "676 F.3d 688, 699 (8th Cir. 2012).", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "-18-", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court has strictly limited the circumstances under which a", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "federal statute may be enforced via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although “§ 1983 allows", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "private parties to sue state actors who violate their ‘rights’ under ‘the Constitution", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "and laws’ of the United States[,] . . . federal statutes do not confer ‘rights’", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "enforceable under § 1983 ‘as a matter of course.’” Medina v. Planned Parenthood", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "S. Atl., 606 U.S. 357, 365 (2025) (citation omitted). While “federal legislation seeks", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "to benefit one group or another[,] . . . § 1983 provides a cause of action ‘only for the", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "deprivation of “rights, privileges, or immunities,”’ not ‘“benefits” or “interests.”’", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "Id. at 368 (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "To prove that a statute is enforceable under § 1983, “a plaintiff must show that", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "the law in question ‘clear[ly] and unambiguous[ly]’ uses ‘rights-creating terms,’”", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "and that it “display[s] ‘an unmistakable focus on individuals like the plaintiff.’” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "(citation omitted) (first and second alteration in original). This test is “‘stringent’", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "and ‘demanding.’” Id. (citation omitted). And Spending Clause statutes—like the", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "SNAP Act—are “especially unlikely” to confer an enforceable right. Id. at 369; see", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "also Does v. Gillespie, 867 F.3d 1034, 1039 (8th Cir. 2017) (“For legislation enacted", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "pursuant to Congress’s spending power. . . ‘the typical remedy for state", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "noncompliance with federally imposed conditions is not a private cause of action for", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "noncompliance but rather action by the Federal Government to terminate funds to", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "the State.’” (citation omitted)). Indeed, as Bax points out, the Supreme Court has", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "only once recognized a Spending Clause statute as creating an enforceable right—in", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski, 599 U.S. 166 (2023)—where", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "it considered two provisions of the Federal Nursing Reform Act. Id. at 172. The", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "first provision obligates nursing homes to “protect and promote” the nursing home", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "residents’ “right to be free from” unnecessary “physical or chemical restraints,” and", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "the second provision “appears in a subparagraph concerning ‘[t]ransfer and", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "discharge rights.’” Id. at 181-82 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Both", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "provisions are contained in a subsection called “[r]equirements relating to residents’", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "rights.” Id. at 184 (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "-19-", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "The district court concluded that “[c]ourts commonly order heads of SNAP", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "administering agencies to comply with the requirements of SNAP” and that", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs can bring suit under this Act, but it did not undertake the required analysis.", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "Courts historically have held that Spending Clause statutes “create[d] an enforceable", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "right if the provision in question was ‘intend[ed] to benefit the putative plaintiff.’”", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "Gillespie, 867 F.3d at 1039 (second alteration in original) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "However, we have since observed that “the governing standard for identifying", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "enforceable federal rights in spending statutes is more rigorous.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the SNAP Act they sued", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "under—7 U.S.C. §§ 2014(a), 2020(e)(2)(B)—create an enforceable federal right", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "under § 1983.", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "Section 2014(a) states, in part, that “[p]articipation in [SNAP] shall be limited", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "to those households whose incomes and other financial resources . . . are determined", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet”", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "and that “[a]ssistance under this program shall be furnished to all eligible households", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "who make application for such participation.” Unlike the provisions in Talevski,", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "these provisions do not contain any rights-creating language and do not set forth", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "concrete duties that Bax owes to specific beneficiaries. Instead, this provision", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "provides the general framework for determining income eligibility and sets forth the", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "criteria governing who qualifies to participate in SNAP. This does not “clear[ly]", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "and unambiguous[ly]” provide Plaintiffs with federal rights to support a cause of", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "action under § 1983. Medina, 606 U.S. at 368 (alterations in original) (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "omitted). As such, we conclude that they cannot maintain a private suit under § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "as to this provision.", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "Section 2020(e)(2)(B) provides, in part, that a state agency “shall provide", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "timely, accurate, and fair service to applicants for, and participants in [SNAP]” and", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "“shall permit an applicant household to apply to participate in the program on the", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "same day that the household first contacts a [SNAP] office.” This provision “focuses", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "neither on the individuals protected nor even on the funding recipients being", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "-20-", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "regulated, but on the agenc[y] that will do the regulating”; and a statute that", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "addresses “the government official who will regulate the recipient of federal funding", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "‘does not confer the sort of “individual entitlement” that is enforceable under", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "§ 1983.’” Gillespie, 867 F.3d at 1041 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). As", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "such, we conclude that this section does not support a private suit under § 1983", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "either.", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that a private right of action independent of", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "§ 1983 can be implied from the SNAP Act, this argument fails for the same reason.", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "Although determining “whether a statutory violation may be enforced through", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "§ 1983 ‘is a different inquiry than that involved in determining whether a private", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "right of action can be implied from a particular statute[,]’. . . the inquiries overlap in", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "one meaningful respect—in either case we must first determine whether Congress", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "intended to create a federal right.” Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283 (2002)", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "(emphasis omitted) (citation omitted). Because we determined that Congress did not", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "intend to create a federal right in the SNAP Act, Plaintiffs cannot maintain an", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "independent cause of action under the SNAP Act either.", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "Thus, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to Counts", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "I and II of Plaintiffs’ complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "V.", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "Next, we address whether the district court erred in determining that Bax’s", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "wrongful denial of Holmes’s and Davis’s SNAP applications violated their due", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "process rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "Holmes and Davis allege that Bax violated their due process rights by", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "depriving them of fair access to SNAP benefits. Bax contends that Missouri’s post-", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "deprivation remedies were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. A", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "plaintiff alleging a procedural due process claim must show two elements: (1)", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "-21-", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "“deprivation by state action of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property” and", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "(2) “inadequate state process.” Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230, 236 (2023).", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "“[T]o have a property interest in a benefit, a recipient must have a legitimate", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "claim of entitlement to it.” Walters v. Weiss, 392 F.3d 306, 314 (8th Cir. 2004)", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "(alteration in original) (citation omitted). The parties agree that SNAP benefits are", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "property protected by the Due Process Clause. Moreover, we have explained that", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "where “[local] rules provide that a person ‘shall’ be deemed eligible for relief if he", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "or she meets established conditions,” they create a “legitimate claim of entitlement", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "and expectancy of benefits in persons who claim to meet the eligibility", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "requirements.” Daniels v. Woodbury Cnty., 742 F.2d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 1984)", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "(citation omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that SNAP applicants have a protected", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "property interest in receipt of these benefits via their SNAP applications.8 It is", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "undisputed that DSS denied Holmes’s and Davis’s SNAP applications.", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "Next, we must consider whether the process Missouri provided Holmes and", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "Davis regarding their SNAP application denials was adequate. Plaintiffs do not", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "argue that due process requires a novel procedural safeguard here. Rather, they", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "contend that it requires Bax to provide meaningful access to the procedures DSS has", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "already established so that eligible applicants will receive SNAP benefits. The", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "Supreme Court has explained that courts must consider three factors when", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "determining what due process requires:", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action;", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "8Bax assumes “without conceding” that applicants have a property interest in", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "their SNAP applications, but she does not make any arguments to distinguish this", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "Court’s precedent in Daniels.", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "-22-", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "requirement would entail.", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "As to the first factor, the district court held that Holmes’s and Davis’s private", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "interest in receipt of SNAP benefits is high because “to be deprived of SNAP is to", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "be deprived of food.” Bax does not contest this holding, and we agree with the", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "district court. See Bliek v. Palmer, 102 F.3d 1472, 1477 (8th Cir. 1997) (concluding", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "that plaintiffs’ “vital interest” in subsistence benefits strongly favored them under", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "the first Mathews factor).", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "Regarding the second factor, the district court determined that “arbitrary", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "decision-making in a subsistence benefits program constitutes a due process", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "violation because of the high risk of erroneous deprivation.” Bax argues that", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "Missouri’s post-deprivation review process—providing hearings to those", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "challenging adverse decisions—is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "process. Plaintiffs contend that this argument has been waived as Bax did not raise", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "it below. Assuming without deciding that Bax did not waive this issue, we conclude", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "that post-deprivation remedies are inadequate to protect Plaintiffs’ rights. While the", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "parties dispute whether Plaintiffs’ benefits were wrongfully denied, in Goldberg v.", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), the Supreme Court held that post-deprivation remedies", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "are insufficient to satisfy due process when “welfare is discontinued” as “[f]or", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "qualified recipients, welfare provides the means to obtain essential food, clothing,", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "housing, and medical care.” Id. at 264. So too here, SNAP benefits, for qualified", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "recipients, provide the means to obtain essential food. Thus, we conclude that post-", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "deprivation remedies are inadequate.", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "As to the third factor, Bax argues that the district court failed to consider the", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "Government’s burden. Although requiring Bax to provide applicants with", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "meaningful access to the SNAP interview process entails administrative costs, this", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "imposes a comparatively modest burden on the Government—particularly where", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "-23-", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "post-deprivation remedies are inadequate to compensate for the loss of essential food", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "assistance.", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "As such, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "judgment to Holmes and Davis as to their due process claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "VI.", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "Next, we address whether the district court erred in granting summary", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "judgment on Dallas’s and Holmes’s ADA failure to accommodate claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "To establish that the defendant violated Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "establish that: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was denied", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "SNAP benefits, or otherwise subjected to discrimination by the defendant; and (3)", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "that such exclusion was because of his disability. See Rinehart v. Weitzell, 964 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "684, 688 (8th Cir. 2020). Additionally, “a plaintiff must prove, among other", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "elements, that she ‘requested accommodations or assistance for . . . her disability.’”", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "Powley v. Rail Crew Xpress, LLC, 25 F.4th 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2022) (alteration in", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "original) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "Holmes alleges that she was deprived of both a reasonable accommodation", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "and the opportunity to request one because DSS did not answer its phones. However,", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "when Holmes went to a resource center, she did not request an accommodation.", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "Further, she does not identify why her alleged disabilities—cancer and chronic", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "pulmonary disease—required an accommodation or what accommodation she", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "needed. See Powley v. Rail Crew Xpress, LLC, 25 F.4th 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2022)", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "(“For an ADA failure-to-accommodate disability-discrimination claim, a plaintiff . .", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": ". . must prove, among other elements, that she “requested accommodations or", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "assistance for . . . her disability.” (second alteration in original) (citation omitted)).", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "Given that the facts do not establish that Holmes ever requested an accommodation,", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "the district court erred by granting Holmes summary judgment on her ADA failure", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "to accommodate claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "-24-", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "Regarding Dallas, it is undisputed that he is qualified for SNAP benefits and", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "that he suffered from a disability—namely, epilepsy. Although DSS never denied", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "his application for SNAP benefits or caused them to lapse, he requested", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "accommodation for his disability and DSS discriminated against him by failing to", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "make a reasonable accommodation. See Mobley, 53 F.4th at 456. As such, we", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Dallas", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "as to his failure to accommodate claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "VII.", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "Finally, we address whether the relief granted by the district court was", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "appropriate. Bax first contends that the district court failed to consider the proper", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "test for permanent injunctive relief before granting it. “We review the grant of", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion. . . . A district court abuses its discretion", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "if it issues an injunction based on an incorrect understanding of the law or reliance", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "on clearly erroneous factual determinations.” Pediatric Specialty Care, Inc. v. Ark.", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 364 F.3d 925, 929 (8th Cir. 2004).", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "For permanent injunctive relief to be appropriate, a plaintiff must show: (1)", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "“actual success on the merits,” (2) “the threat of irreparable harm to the moving", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "party,” (3) “the balance of harms with any injury an injunction might inflict on other", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "parties,” and (4) “the public interest.” Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W Enters., Inc.,", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "542 F.3d 224, 229 (8th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court concluded that Plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "showed actual success on the merits as to their SNAP Act, due process, and ADA", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "claims,9 that they would be irreparably harmed by Bax’s continuing violations, that", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "the balance of harms weights in Plaintiffs’ favor, and that granting injunctive relief", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "to Plaintiffs is in the public interest.", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "9As explained earlier, we concluded that Plaintiffs did not show actual success", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "on the merits as to their SNAP Act claims and that Holmes’s ADA claim failed.", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "-25-", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "Bax argues that the district court erred by failing to consider whether Plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "have an adequate remedy at law. We agree. The district court must consider whether", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law before finding irreparable harm. See", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "Taylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 403 F.3d 958, 967 (8th Cir. 2005) (“It", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "is well-established that a party is entitled to equitable relief only if there is no", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "adequate remedy at law.”); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, LLC, 563", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Irreparable harm occurs when a party has no", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "adequate remedy at law[.]”). Although Plaintiffs argue that Bax waived this", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "argument because she failed to raise it below, we disagree. Bax does not raise a new", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "issue, as there is no irreparable harm if a movant has an adequate remedy at law. See", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "Universal Title Ins. Co. v. United States, 942 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir. 1991) (“The", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "real [waiver] question should be whether the new argument is such as to raise a new", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "issue . . . . [W]e think it would be in disharmony with one of the primary purposes", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "of appellate review were we to refuse to consider each nuance or shift in approach", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "urged by a party simply because it was not similarly urged below.” (second and third", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "alterations in original) (citation omitted)); see also Bandag, Inc. v. Jack’s Tire & Oil,", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "Inc., 190 F.3d 924, 926 (8th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he basis of injunctive relief in the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "courts has always been irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies.” (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "omitted)).", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "Although “[w]e will not disturb a district court’s discretionary decision if such", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "decision . . . accounts for all relevant factors, does not rely on any irrelevant factors,", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "and does not constitute a clear error of judgment,” PCTV Gold, Inc. v. SpeedNet,", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "LLC, 508 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir. 2007), the district court’s failure to consider", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "whether Plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law before granting permanent", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "injunctive relief is an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "permanent injunction and remand for it to consider whether Holmes and Davis have", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "an adequate remedy at law regarding Bax’s violation of their due process rights and", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "whether Dallas has an adequate remedy at law as to his ADA claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "Failure to consider the presence of an adequate remedy at law was not the only", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "problem with the district court’s permanent injunction analysis. The district court", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "-26-", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "also ordered sweeping, overbroad relief, requiring Bax to make systemic changes to", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "the SNAP benefits program in Missouri, which would affect all SNAP applicants in", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "the state, not just the plaintiffs in this suit. This bears similarity to a universal", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "injunction—a form of relief that federal courts lack authority to issue. See Iowa", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "Migrant Movement for Just. v. Bird, 157 F.4th 904, 930 (8th Cir. 2025)", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "(“‘[U]niversal injunctions’—that is, injunctions that ‘prohibit enforcement of a law", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "or policy against anyone’—‘likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "granted to the federal courts.’” (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted)); see also", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 841 (2025) (“A universal injunction can be", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "courts no such power.”). Accordingly, on remand, if the district court determines", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "that permanent injunctive relief is appropriate, it must consider “whether a narrower", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "injunction is appropriate” so that the injunction is not “broader than necessary to", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.” Iowa Migrant", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "Movement, 157 F.4th at 930 (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "VIII.", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "court’s grant of summary judgment, vacate the permanent injunction, and remand", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "LOKEN, Circuit Judge, concurs and concurs in the judgment as to Part V.", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "______________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_735" } ], "word_count": 8053, "cites": [ "594 U.S. 413", "581 U.S. 433", "455 U.S. 363", "602 U.S. 367", "414\nU.S. 488", "597 U.S. 785", "561 U.S. 247", "438 U.S. 781", "606 U.S. 357", "599 U.S. 166", "536 U.S. 273", "598 U.S. 230", "424 U.S. 319", "397 U.S. 254", "606 U.S. 831", "887 F.3d 424", "953 F.3d 1059", "26 F.4th 457", "142 F.4th 1107", "171 F.4th 1058", "458\nF.3d 779", "176 F.4th 562", "893 F.3d 1047", "89 F.4th 1071", "64 F.4th 932", "821 F.3d 723", "359 F.3d 1029", "668 F.3d 549", "419 F.3d 729", "161 F.4th 1109", "53 F.4th 452", "721 F.3d 588", "150 F.4th 936", "676 F.3d 688", "867 F.3d 1034", "392 F.3d 306", "742 F.2d 1128", "102 F.3d 1472", "964 F.3d\n684", "25 F.4th 610", "364 F.3d 925", "542 F.3d 224", "403 F.3d 958", "563\nF.3d 312", "942 F.2d 1311", "190 F.3d 924", "508 F.3d 1137", "157 F.4th 904" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "5f322d4c3ef9cc7f02ab684cc34a08c8a60283e7f040089adf04e52d53db48a8", "source_url": "https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/08/251987P.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-09-28T06:11:49.526+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19", "neighbors": [ { "id": "us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04", "name": "Dr. Lesley Williams v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia", "decided": "2026-09-04", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04" }, { "id": "us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28", "name": "M. v. Aledo", "decided": "2026-08-28", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28" }, { "id": "us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27", "name": "Lowell v. Lyft, Inc.", "decided": "2026-08-27", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27" }, { "id": "us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25", "name": "Jeremy Ellis v. Sheriff, Hillsborough County Florida", "decided": "2026-08-25", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25" }, { "id": "us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24", "name": "Zamaria Metcalf v. State of Michigan", "decided": "2026-08-24", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24" }, { "id": "us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21", "name": "Christopher Billesdon v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC", "decided": "2026-08-21", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21" }, { "id": "us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21", "name": "Cherry v. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife", "decided": "2026-08-21", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21" }, { "id": "us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20", "name": "Annette Kingsolver v. U.S. Attorney General", "decided": "2026-08-20", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20" }, { "id": "us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20", "name": "Rios v. City of Azusa", "decided": "2026-08-20", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20" }, { "id": "us:ca9-25-7384-2026-08-14", "name": "Queerdoc, Pllc v. DOJ - United States Department of Justice", "decided": "2026-08-14", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-7384-2026-08-14", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-25-7384-2026-08-14", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-25-7384-2026-08-14" } ], "verification": { "stored_sha256": "5f322d4c3ef9cc7f02ab684cc34a08c8a60283e7f040089adf04e52d53db48a8", "recomputed_sha256": "5f322d4c3ef9cc7f02ab684cc34a08c8a60283e7f040089adf04e52d53db48a8", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-20T11:07:24.105Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:debba62fb261c3331b49424dfedb44cbd34cfc08b86e4253bc1f9c71a2bec5a7", "version": "legal-2026-10-20", "expires": "2026-10-21T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-20+legal-2026-10-20+2026-10-20T08:18:10", "content_hash": "sha256:debba62fb261c3331b49424dfedb44cbd34cfc08b86e4253bc1f9c71a2bec5a7", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-20T12:07:24.261Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }