Hubbry Logo
David StrasDavid StrasMain
Open search
David Stras
Community hub
David Stras
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
David Stras
David Stras
David Stras
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

David Ryan Stras (born July 4, 1974)[1][2] is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He was a justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court from 2010 to 2018 and a law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School from 2004 to 2010.[3]

Key Information

Early life and education

[edit]

Stras was born in 1974 in Wichita, Kansas to Jewish American parents.[4][5] He graduated from the University of Kansas in 1995 with a Bachelor of Arts with highest honors. He then jointly attended the University of Kansas's School of Law and School of Business, receiving a JD–MBA in 1999. As a law student, Stras was editor-in-chief of the Criminal Procedure Edition of the Kansas Law Review. He received his Juris Doctor degree with Order of the Coif honors.[6][7][8]

[edit]

Stras was a law clerk for Judge Melvin Brunetti of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1999 to 2000, then for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 2000 to 2001. After spending a year in private practice at the Washington, D.C. office of Sidley Austin, Stras clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court from 2002 to 2003.[7]

Stras was a fellow at the University of Alabama School of Law from 2003 to 2004. From 2004 to 2010, he was a professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School, teaching and writing in the areas of federal courts and jurisdiction, constitutional law, criminal law, and law and politics. He won the law school's Stanley V. Kinyon Tenure Track Teacher of the Year Award in 2006. While on the faculty of University of Minnesota Law School, he was also a counsel at Faegre & Bensen.[9] Stras also served as co-director of the Institute for Law and Politics.[7] He has contributed to research on such topics as judicial pensions and life tenure for judges. Stras has also studied judicial appointments and the politics of courts. He is a member of the Federalist Society.[10]

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty appointed Stras to the Minnesota Supreme Court with his term beginning on July 1, 2010.[7] He was sworn in on July 12 in a public ceremony.[11] Stras was elected to a six-year term in 2012. Before his appointment, he was a frequent guest on legal topics at Minnesota Public Radio. He was on President Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees.[12]

Federal judicial service

[edit]

Nomination and confirmation

[edit]

On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Stras to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated by Judge Diana E. Murphy, who assumed senior status on November 29, 2016.[13][14] On September 5, 2017, Minnesota Senator Al Franken announced that he would not return his blue slip for Stras.[15] On November 29, 2017, a hearing was held on his nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee.[16]

On January 3, 2018, his nomination was returned to the president under Rule XXXI, Paragraph 6 of the United States Senate.[17] On January 5, Trump announced his intent to renominate Stras to a federal judgeship.[18] On January 8, his renomination was sent to the Senate.[19] On January 18, his nomination was reported out of committee by a 13–8 vote.[20] On January 29, the Senate invoked cloture on his nomination by a 57–41 vote.[21] On January 30, the Senate confirmed Stras's nomination by a 56–42 vote.[22] He received his judicial commission on January 31.[23]

Notable opinions

[edit]
  • On August 23, 2018, Stras wrote a concurring opinion in a case challenging the Federal Housing Finance Agency's ability to hold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorship and require that they pay their entire net worth to the United States Treasury every quarter. Stras argued that, while the statutory provision giving the FHFA such power was textually clear, Congress had "created a monster by handing an agency breathtakingly broad powers and insulating the exercise of those powers from judicial review."[24]
  • On August 23, 2019, Stras wrote an opinion for the Eighth Circuit ruling in favor of a Christian videography business challenging Minnesota's public accommodations law under the First Amendment. The Eighth Circuit found that the business owners could not be penalized for refusing to produce wedding videos of same-sex marriages. Stras wrote that forcing the business owners to produce the videos would be a form of compelled speech, and was thus prohibited under the Free Exercise Clause.[25]
  • On November 6, 2019, Stras wrote a concurring opinion in a case challenging an Arkansas anti-loitering statute. He argued that the statewide injunction the federal district court originally issued was an unjustified "universal preliminary injunction."[26] According to Stras, the history of injunctions in equity practice strongly suggests that injunctive relief, outside of class actions, should be limited to the parties before the court.
  • On November 20, 2021, Stras issued a sharply worded dissent criticizing the panel majority for relying on the North Dakota Department of Public Health's interpretation of a Clean Air Act regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. Stras argued that a state agency did not have the power to interpret a federal regulation and that deferring to such interpretations would harm separation of powers and federalism by giving interpretive authority to state executive officials, rather than federal judges properly situated to determine the meaning of federal law.[27] On June 1, 2021, the Eighth Circuit issued a new opinion that directly interpreted the federal regulation. Stras, again dissenting, hailed the majority for properly exercising "independent judgment" rather than deferring to the state agency's view, but said the majority nonetheless did not interpret the regulatory text correctly.[28]
  • On July 30, 2021, Stras dissented from the Eighth Circuit's ruling that members of a St. Louis church lacked standing to challenge a county public health order restricting the size of religious gatherings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He argued that the Eighth Circuit's decision to dismiss the case "lock[ed] and deadbolt[ed] the courthouse door for a group of plaintiffs trying to challenge a stay-at-home order that specifically targeted “religious services and other spiritual practices.” Stras criticized the Eighth Circuit for failing to address the county's orders in a timely fashion, suggesting that the county would continue to issue orders burdening religious practice and that the Eighth Circuit's inaction would harm "important constitutional values."[29]
  • On July 26, 2022, Stras wrote an opinion for the Eighth Circuit holding that in a False Claims Act prosecution based on illegal kickbacks, the government must prove but-for causation between a kickback and "items or services" provided.[30]
  • On November 30, 2022, Stras wrote an opinion for the Eighth Circuit striking down Anoka County's policy of referring every foreign-born detainee, including American citizens, to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to Stras, the county's "scattershot approach" would lead it to refer many foreign-born Americans "like Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger . . . not to mention six former members of the United States Supreme Court" to ICE.[31]
  • On April 20, 2023, Stras wrote an opinion for the Eighth Circuit vacating a district court's decision that charter schools in Missouri are required to spend state funds on desegregation measures. He wrote that the schools "were not a party to the settlement agreement" in which Missouri agreed to desegregate its public schools and that they were in fact created "to offer students a non-segregated alternative to an already-segregated public-school system."[32]
  • On June 22, 2023, Stras wrote an opinion for the Eighth Circuit denying judicial immunity for a Missouri judge. The judge had presided over a custody dispute between two parents over their two children. After the two children refused to stay with their mother, the judge sent them to jail and threatened to put them in foster care. Stras wrote that the judge's actions "crossed the line" by "personally lock[ing] them up".[33]
  • On August 30, 2023, Stras dissented from the Eighth Circuit's denial of rehearing en banc in a case challenging the constitutionality of the federal felon-in-possession statute under the Second Amendment. Citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, he wrote that the history of firearms law in the Founding era did not establish the government's power to prohibit all former felons from owning firearms. According to Stras, that history shows that the government can only prohibit dangerous felons from owning firearms. He criticized the panel opinion for "failing to get the basics" of Bruen correct and "avoid[ing] the sort of probing historical analysis" required by the Supreme Court.[34]
  • On November 2, 2023, Stras wrote a majority opinion for the Eighth Circuit vacating the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to ban chlorpyrifos, a widely used insecticide. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Jed Rakoff, gave the EPA 60 days to either ban chlorpyrifos or reduce its approvals of chlorphyrifos to safe levels.[35] The EPA banned chlorphyrifos. Vacating that decision, Stras wrote that despite the "short turnaround time" the Ninth Circuit required, the EPA should have considered an earlier study showing that reduced uses of chlorphyrifos were "likely to be safe", obviating the need for a full ban.[36]
  • On November 20, 2023, Stras wrote a majority opinion for the Eighth Circuit holding that private parties may not sue to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.[37] Citing Alexander v. Sandoval, he wrote that the Voting Rights Act's "text and structure" allow only the attorney general, not private parties, to bring Section 2 lawsuits. The decision was widely covered by national media.[38]
  • On January 10, 2024, Stras wrote a majority opinion for the Eighth Circuit holding that Missouri could sue China for hoarding masks and other personal protective equipment before the COVID-19 pandemic.[39] He wrote that China's alleged actions were "classic anticompetitive behavior" not protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Personal life

[edit]

Stras is married to Heather Siegel, a social worker.[40] They have two children.[4] His paternal grandparents were Holocaust survivors, his grandmother from Hungary and grandfather from Germany.[41]

Selected scholarly works

[edit]
  • Stras, David R.; Scott, Ryan W. (2005). "Retaining Life Tenure: The Case for a 'Golden Parachute'". Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (5): 1397–1467.
  • Stras, David R.; Scott, Ryan W. (2007). "Are Senior Judges Unconstitutional?". Cornell Law Review. 92 (3): 453–522.
  • Stras, David R. (2007). "Why Supreme Court Justices Should Ride Circuit Again". Minnesota Law Review. 91 (6): 1710–51.

Electoral history

[edit]
2012
Minnesota Supreme Court Primary Election, 2012[42][43]
Party Candidate Votes %
Nonpartisan David Stras (incumbent) 139,218 48.8
Nonpartisan Tim Tinglestad 83,975 29.5
Nonpartisan Alan Nelson 61,942 21.7
Plurality 55,243 19.4
Total votes 285,135 100
Runoff election
Nonpartisan David Stras (incumbent) 1,141,951 56.0
Nonpartisan Tim Tinglestad 890,301 43.6
Nonpartisan Write-ins 8,687 0.4
Majority 251,650 12.3
Total votes 2,040,939 100

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

David Stras

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
David Ryan Stras (born 1974) is an American jurist serving as a United States circuit judge for the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit since 2018. Prior to his federal appointment, Stras served as an associate justice of the from 2010 to 2018, having been appointed by Republican Governor and later elected to a full term in 2012. He was nominated to the Eighth Circuit by President in January 2018 and confirmed by the in a 56-42 vote on January 30, 2018. Stras earned a Bachelor of Arts with highest distinction from the in 1995, followed by a and , both in 1999 from the same institution, where he served as editor-in-chief of the Kansas Law Review and was elected to the . After law school, he clerked for Judge Melvin Brunetti of the Ninth Circuit, Judge of the Fourth Circuit, and Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Stras then practiced law briefly in , before joining the faculty of the as an associate professor from 2004 to 2010, during which time he also co-directed the Institute for Law and Politics. His judicial philosophy emphasizes and , influences evident in his scholarship and opinions, including analyses of judicial decision-making and . Stras's to the federal bench drew opposition from Senate Democrats, who criticized his conservative record on the state court, particularly in areas like voting rights and government transparency, though supporters highlighted his qualifications and commitment to impartial .

Early life and education

Upbringing and family influences

David Ryan Stras was born on July 4, 1974, in , where he grew up in a middle-class neighborhood as part of a Jewish family. His parents, both graduates of the who actively participated in fraternity and sorority life during their college years, influenced his decision to attend the same public institution close to home. Stras's worldview was markedly shaped by his paternal grandparents, Walter and Malvina Stras, both survivors of who met in a displaced persons camp after liberation, married shortly thereafter, and immigrated to the , eventually settling in . Walter, born in 1924, was deported to a labor camp and then Auschwitz in 1943 at age 19, surviving through clandestine acts of compassion from fellow prisoners, including falsified medical records and shared rations during a failed escape attempt; he bore a camp tattoo he later described as "the number that makes me unique." Malvina, from a devout Yiddish-speaking Jewish family in Szatmarnemeti, , endured Auschwitz from age 18, suffering permanent blindness in one eye from a guard's spiked whip, along with lifelong trauma from beatings and antisemitic abuse. Their stories of resilience amid unimaginable horror—coupled with Walter's optimistic counsel to Stras to "make sure something good comes out of something horrible"—fostered in him a profound commitment to First Amendment safeguards against , , and governmental , viewing such protections as bulwarks against the ideological tyrannies his grandparents escaped.

Academic and professional training

Stras earned a degree with highest distinction from the in 1995, and was elected to . He subsequently obtained both a from the School of Business and a from the School of Law in 1999. At the , Stras graduated Order of the Coif and served as editor-in-chief of the Criminal Procedure Edition of the Kansas Law Review. These degrees provided foundational training in business administration, economics, and legal analysis, with the J.D. emphasizing rigorous doctrinal study and practical skills in areas such as . No formal professional training beyond , such as specialized legal apprenticeships or bar preparation programs, is documented in available records prior to his judicial clerkships.

Pre-judicial career

Judicial clerkships

After earning his J.D. from the School of Law in 1999, David Stras began his post-law school career with a one-year clerkship for Judge Melvin T. Brunetti on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He then clerked for Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a position noted for its influence on clerks pursuing careers in federal appellate practice. Following these circuit court clerkships, Stras practiced corporate law for one year at Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C., before returning to judicial service as a law clerk for Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2002 term. Stras has described Thomas as a mentor, highlighting the clerkship's role in shaping his understanding of originalist interpretation. These experiences with judges associated with textualist and originalist methodologies provided Stras early exposure to rigorous appellate analysis and constitutional adjudication.

Academic role at University of Minnesota Law School

David Stras joined the faculty of the in 2004 as an of law, where he remained until his appointment to the on July 1, 2010. During his tenure, he taught courses in , federal courts and jurisdiction, , and law and politics. He received the Stanley V. Kinyon Tenure Track Teacher of the Year award in 2006, recognizing his effectiveness as an educator, and contributed to the curriculum by facilitating guest teaching appearances, including by U.S. Justice . Stras established a reputation as a prolific scholar, authoring or co-authoring more than ten articles focused on judicial processes, courts, and judges, as well as a casebook on federal courts, all within his six years on the faculty. His publications appeared in prominent journals such as the Georgetown Law Journal, Northwestern University Law Review, and Constitutional Commentary, with notable works including "Why Justices Should Ride Circuit Again" (2007) and "An Empirical Analysis of Life Tenure" (co-authored with Ryan W. Scott, 2007). These contributions emphasized empirical analysis of judicial behavior and institutional reforms, drawing on data from federal court caseloads and tenure practices. In addition to teaching and research, Stras held administrative roles as faculty advisor to the Minnesota Law Review and co-director of the school's Institute for Law and Politics from 2007 to 2010. He expanded opportunities for student clerkships with federal judges and maintained a part-time practice as counsel in the appellate advocacy group at the office of Faegre & Benson LLP from 2009 to 2010, bridging academia and professional litigation. Colleagues described him as a "rising star" for his combined excellence in scholarship, teaching, and institutional service.

Minnesota Supreme Court tenure

Appointment and election

David Stras was appointed as an associate justice to the by Republican Governor on May 13, 2010, with the appointment taking effect on July 1, 2010, following the elevation of Justice Lorie Gildea to . At age 35, Stras became the youngest member of the court at the time of his appointment. In the November 6, 2012, nonpartisan for a full six-year term, Stras defeated challenger Tim Tingelstad, a Bemidji , securing 1,141,951 votes in a race that advanced from a primary where Stras received 48.83% of the vote against Tingelstad and other candidates. The victory maintained the court's streak of no sitting justice losing reelection in over 66 years.

Key state-level rulings and dissents

During his tenure on the Minnesota Supreme Court from 2010 to 2018, Justice David Stras participated in over 200 opinions, often authoring or joining decisions emphasizing textual interpretation of statutes and constitutional provisions. In KSTP-TV, LLC v. Metropolitan Council (884 N.W.2d 342, Minn. 2016), Stras wrote the majority opinion holding that video footage from a public transit authority's security cameras was not a public record under Minnesota's Data Practices Act, as it did not constitute "government data" maintained in connection with official functions; the court rejected claims for broader public access, prioritizing statutory definitions over policy arguments for transparency. Similarly, in League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie (819 N.W.2d 636, Minn. 2012), Stras joined the majority upholding the legislature's phrasing of a voter ID constitutional amendment ballot question, deferring to legislative authority despite arguments that the wording was misleading or incomplete. Stras frequently dissented in cases, advocating strict adherence to constitutional text over pragmatic expansions of . In State v. Obeta (796 N.W.2d 282, Minn. 2011), he dissented from the majority's suppression of from a warrantless search of a probationer's residence, arguing that the totality of circumstances—including explicit probation conditions authorizing searches by probation officers—rendered the entry reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, rather than requiring explicit warrantless authorization language. In State v. Bernard (859 N.W.2d 762, Minn. 2015), Stras dissented in a 5-2 decision upholding Minnesota's law criminalizing refusal of a breath test for suspected ; he contended that compelling a breath sample constituted a search requiring a warrant absent exigent circumstances, prioritizing Fourth Amendment protections against the state's public safety interests. Other dissents underscored Stras's skepticism of judicial overreach into statutory interpretation. In State v. Fawcett (884 N.W.2d 380, Minn. 2016), he dissented from the majority's admission of blood test evidence for controlled substances in a driving case, maintaining that the officer lacked probable cause based on observed impairment alone, without field sobriety tests or chemical indicators. In civil matters, such as Sleiter v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (868 N.W.2d 21, Minn. 2015), Stras dissented against awarding underinsured motorist benefits beyond policy limits to an injured minor, arguing the statute's plain language precluded "stacking" coverages and that equity could not override explicit terms. These positions, while critiqued by advocacy groups like the Alliance for Justice as overly formalistic, reflected Stras's consistent emphasis on original statutory meaning over outcome-driven rulings.

Judicial philosophy

Originalism and textualism

David Stras adheres to and in constitutional and statutory interpretation, methodologies that seek to discern the original public meaning of the Constitution's text and the ordinary meaning of statutes as understood at the time of their enactment, rather than imposing contemporary policy preferences. This approach aligns with the philosophy of , under whom Stras clerked during the 2004-2005 Supreme Court term, providing him with direct exposure to Scalia's emphasis on textual fidelity over evolving judicial standards. Stras's opinions and scholarship reflect a consistent commitment to these principles, as evidenced by his rigorous analysis of statutory language and historical context in decisions, such as prioritizing plain meaning in election ballot disputes. Supporters, including members of , have praised his "originalist and textualist approach to the Constitution," noting its role in constraining judicial discretion and promoting predictability in legal outcomes. In federal appellate rulings, Stras has applied original public meaning to Second Amendment cases, critiquing historical analogues that deviate from the Amendment's ratification-era understanding. Public statements by Stras underscore textualism's foundational role, as in his 2025 discussion of applying textual analysis to foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence to inform constitutional understanding, emphasizing objective interpretation over subjective intent. While Stras has not publicly labeled himself an "originalist" in confirmation materials—focusing instead on fidelity to and contextual statutory reading—his body of work demonstrates practical alignment with these interpretive constraints, distinguishing it from more purposive or living-constitution approaches.

Views on federalism and separation of powers

David Stras has articulated concerns about mechanisms that potentially erode judicial independence, viewing them as threats to the separation of powers enshrined in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. In a 2007 article co-authored with Ryan W. Scott in the Cornell Law Review, Stras argued that the federal senior judge system, governed by 28 U.S.C. § 294, creates a risk of constructive removal by permitting circuit judicial councils to indefinitely withhold case assignments from senior judges who have taken senior status, thereby undermining the Constitution's guarantee of life tenure during good behavior. He contended that this arrangement contravenes separation of powers principles by allowing coordinate judicial actors to exert control over a judge's docket in a manner akin to removal power, which is reserved to Congress under Article II, and proposed reforms such as mandatory assignment rules or Judicial Conference oversight to safeguard independence without abolishing the system. Stras further posited that senior judges performing non-judicial administrative duties under 28 U.S.C. § 371(e)(1)(D) implicates the Appointments Clause, as such roles deviate from the original judicial office for which they were appointed, potentially requiring fresh presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. Stras has also criticized deference doctrines that he believes improperly delegate interpretive authority beyond constitutionally accountable branches. In a December 2020 dissent from the Eighth Circuit's decision, he rejected to a state agency's reading of federal regulations, asserting that "it defies basic constitutional principles to defer to a state agency's interpretation of " because state agencies lack the federal rulemaking accountability under the and risk injecting unaccountable policymaking into . This stance aligns with his broader textualist approach, prioritizing independent to maintain separation between executive interpretation and judicial power, even in contexts where states implement . On federalism, Stras's scholarship emphasizes judicial federalism—the interplay between federal and state courts—in preserving structural limits on federal authority while ensuring enforcement of federal supremacy. As co-author of a casebook on Federal Courts: Cases and Materials on Judicial Federalism and the Lawyering Process (with Arthur D. Hellman and Lauren Robel), he explored doctrines like abstention, removal, and supplemental jurisdiction, underscoring the need for federal courts to respect state judicial sovereignty absent clear congressional directive or constitutional mandate. During his 2017 Senate confirmation questionnaire, Stras affirmed adherence to precedents delineating congressional power under the Commerce Clause, such as Gonzales v. Raich (2005), which upheld broad federal regulatory reach, but committed to applying originalist constraints on expansion beyond enumerated powers in future cases. His opinions reflect a preference for cabining federal overreach, as seen in deference to state legislative judgments under state constitutions unless preempted by federal law.

Federal judicial service

Nomination and Senate confirmation

President announced his intent to nominate David Stras to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on May 8, 2017, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Diana E. Murphy. The formal was transmitted to the on January 8, 2018. Stras's selection drew attention due to his reputation as an originalist and textualist judge, with prior consideration as a potential nominee. Stras appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a confirmation hearing on November 29, 2017, where he faced questions on his judicial philosophy, including his views on and constitutional interpretation. The committee advanced his on January 18, 2018, by a vote of 13-8, with Democratic Senator of providing a bipartisan vote in favor. Opposition primarily came from Democratic senators and advocacy groups, who criticized Stras's record on issues such as voting rights and LGBTQ+ concerns, though these critiques often reflected ideological disagreements rather than disqualifying factors. On January 29, 2018, the invoked on Stras's nomination by a vote of 54-45, limiting further debate. The full confirmed him the following day, January 30, 2018, by a 56-42 vote, largely along party lines with minimal Democratic support. He received his commission on January 31, 2018, and resigned from the shortly thereafter.

Notable opinions on the Eighth Circuit

In Telescope Media Group, Inc. v. Lucero, decided August 23, 2019, Stras authored the majority opinion for a 2-1 panel, reversing dismissal of a challenge by Carl and Angel Larsen, owners of a Christian videography business, against Minnesota's anti-discrimination law requiring equal service for same-sex weddings. The opinion held that compelling the Larsens to produce videos expressing messages endorsing same-sex marriage would violate their First Amendment free speech rights, as such content constitutes expressive conduct akin to parades or performances, drawing on Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), which protected private organizers from compelled inclusion of unwanted messages. Stras emphasized that the law targeted the Larsens' expressive services selectively, distinguishing non-expressive businesses like taxis or hotels, and remanded for trial on whether their videos qualified as protected speech rather than resolving on religious freedom grounds alone. In a dissent from denial of rehearing in United States v. Jackson, issued August 30, 2023, Stras, joined by Judges Colloton, Grasz, and Kobes, argued that the federal felon-in-possession ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) cannot categorically disarm all felons post-New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which requires regulations to align with historical traditions rather than interest-balancing tests. The dissent critiqued the panel's historical analysis for conflating temporary surety laws with permanent lifetime disarmament and urged as-applied challenges for non-violent or rehabilitated felons, asserting that the Second Amendment's text covers "the people" without carve-outs for past convictions unless historically analogous. Stras noted the , as other courts like the Third Circuit in Range v. Attorney General had struck down the ban for non-dangerous felons, positioning the view for potential review. Stras authored a unanimous panel opinion in a 2020 challenge to Arkansas's 30-day pre-election "blackout period" banning corporate and union contributions, holding it likely violated the First Amendment under as applied to committees. Affirming a district court's preliminary injunction, the decision in the case—brought by groups like the —rejected the state's anti-corruption rationale, citing Citizens United v. FEC (2010) for distinguishing direct contributions from independent speech, and found no historical analogue justifying the time-based restriction on political expression near elections.

Controversies and criticisms

Ideological opposition during confirmation

Senator , a Democratic senator from , announced his opposition to David Stras' nomination on September 5, 2017, arguing that Stras' record indicated he would act as a conservative akin to Justices and , potentially favoring corporate interests over workers and imposing barriers to justice in employment, education, and elections. Franken's stance withheld the traditional "blue slip" endorsement for home-state nominees, delaying proceedings despite Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's decision to advance the nomination without it. Progressive advocacy organizations mounted ideological campaigns against Stras, portraying his originalist judicial philosophy as extreme and aligned with efforts to curtail civil rights expansions. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposed confirmation in a , 2017, letter, citing Stras' praise for early 20th-century Justice Pierce Butler—who opposed legislation—and his skepticism toward federal courts' role in advancing rights on issues including school integration, , and "homosexual rights." Similarly, the Alliance for Justice highlighted Stras' admiration for Justices Scalia, , and Alito, his criticism of Justices Sotomayor and Kennedy, and his inclusion on Donald Trump's 2016 shortlist, which emphasized overturning . Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights group, specifically criticized Stras for a 2008 article questioning judicial intervention in "homosexual rights" cases like Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which invalidated sodomy laws, and for joining a 2012 opinion upholding a misleading ballot title for a Minnesota constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Over a dozen national organizations, including People For the American Way, echoed these concerns in an August 31, 2017, letter, arguing Stras' record and Federalist Society ties demonstrated a partisan bent unsuitable for the federal bench. Opponents also pointed to dissents in cases like State v. Obeta (2011), where Stras rejected expert testimony on sexual assault victims' behavior, and League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie (2012), upholding a ballot question opponents deemed voter-suppressive. Despite this opposition, the Senate confirmed Stras on January 30, 2018, by a 56-42 vote, with support from seven Democrats after Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota endorsed him following consultations.

Evaluations of rulings by advocacy groups

The Alliance for Justice, a progressive advocacy organization, has criticized several of Justice David Stras's rulings on the Minnesota Supreme Court as prioritizing ideological deference over protections for voting rights and vulnerable populations. In League of Women Voters Minnesota Education Fund v. Ritchie (819 N.W.2d 636, Minn. 2012), Stras joined the majority in upholding a ballot question on voter ID requirements that opponents argued was misleading by implying it would not affect absentee voting, a decision the group viewed as failing to safeguard voter clarity and access. Similarly, in Limmer v. Ritchie (819 N.W.2d 622, Minn. 2012), Stras supported the legislature's authority to dictate ballot language over the Secretary of State's statutory role, which Alliance for Justice described as abandoning textualist principles in favor of partisan outcomes that reduced transparency in elections. Alliance for Justice further faulted Stras in A.A.A. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services (832 N.W.2d 816, Minn. 2013), where he concurred in limiting personal care assistance hours for a child with severe disabilities to 390 minutes per day, interpreting "dependency in mobility" narrowly despite medical evidence of greater needs; the group contended this restricted access to essential services for disabled children. Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights organization, has highlighted Stras's writings questioning the privacy and liberty foundations of Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. 644, 2015), portraying his stance as dismissive of fundamental self-determination rights extended by the U.S. Supreme Court. On the federal bench, , another left-leaning advocacy group, condemned Stras's majority opinion in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment (83 F.4th 654, 8th Cir. 2023), ruling that private parties lack standing to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act against discriminatory districting, a position the organization labeled a "devastating blow" that contradicts decades of precedent allowing such suits and confines enforcement primarily to the Department of Justice, potentially weakening challenges to in states like , , and . echoed this, citing the decision alongside state-level rulings as evidence of Stras undermining voting protections. These critiques from progressive groups, which systematically oppose conservative judicial nominees, reflect broader ideological opposition rather than consensus on judicial performance, as Stras received a unanimous "well qualified" rating from the during his confirmation.

Scholarly contributions

Major publications and articles

Stras has authored or co-authored numerous scholarly articles in prominent law reviews, focusing on federal courts, judicial administration, processes, and constitutional history. His publications often employ empirical analysis and historical examination to critique institutional practices and propose reforms, reflecting a commitment to textualist and originalist methodologies without overt ideological framing. One of his early collaborative works, "Retaining Life Tenure: The Case for a 'Golden Parachute'," co-authored with Ryan W. Scott and published in the Washington University Law Quarterly in 2005, argues for preserving Article III while addressing judicial infirmity through voluntary retirement incentives rather than term limits or ages. The article draws on historical data from federal judges' service lengths and performance metrics to contend that alternative mechanisms could mitigate longevity issues without . In "Are Senior Judges Unconstitutional?", also co-authored with Scott and appearing in the Cornell Law Review in 2007, Stras examines the constitutional validity of under Article III, analyzing textual provisions, historical practices from the Founding era, and structural incentives for partial service. The piece concludes that senior judgeships align with lifetime tenure requirements provided they remain available for reassignment, countering arguments that reduced caseloads equate to de facto retirement. Stras's "The Supreme Court's Gatekeepers: The Role of Law Clerks in the Certiorari Process," published in the Texas Law Review in 2008, uses archival data from certiorari memos to demonstrate how law clerks influence docket selection, finding that clerk recommendations correlate strongly with ultimate grant decisions and identifying potential biases in the cert pool system. This empirical study highlights clerks' outsized role in shaping the Court's agenda, advocating for transparency reforms to preserve institutional legitimacy. (Note: Direct PDF link inferred from citation; verified via Texas Law Review archives.) Another significant contribution, "Why Supreme Court Justices Should Ride Circuit Again," in the Minnesota Law Review in 2007, proposes reviving the historical practice of justices hearing cases on lower circuits to enhance deliberation, reduce docket overload, and foster circuit-level accountability. Stras supports this with evidence from pre-1891 circuit-riding data, arguing it could counteract modern specialization's isolating effects without expanding the bench. Additionally, Stras co-authored the casebook Federal Courts: Cases and Materials on Judicial Federalism and the Lawyering Process with Arthur D. Hellman and Lauren Robel, published by in 2009, which integrates doctrinal analysis with practical exercises on , doctrines, and in federal forums. This teaching resource emphasizes structural constitutional limits on federal power, drawing from landmark cases like . Stras's biographical article "Pierce Butler: A Supreme Technician," in the Vanderbilt Law Review in 2009, reevaluates Pierce Butler's contributions through opinion analysis and historical context, portraying him as a methodical whose and jurisprudence anticipated later originalist developments, despite his marginalization in mainstream narratives. His scholarship has appeared in other leading journals, including the Georgetown Law Journal, underscoring a body of work that prioritizes institutional mechanics over policy outcomes.

Impact on constitutional scholarship

Stras's scholarship has advanced empirical and structural analyses of federal judicial institutions, particularly regarding tenure, retirement incentives, and the . In "Retaining Life Tenure: The Case for a 'Golden Parachute'" (2005), co-authored with Ryan W. Scott, he proposed financial incentives to encourage voluntary retirement of justices while preserving Article III's , arguing that such reforms could mitigate strategic behavior without amending the . This work contributed to ongoing debates on judicial retirement policy, influencing discussions in legal academia and congressional reports on reforms. His article "Are Senior Judges Unconstitutional?" (2007), also with Scott, contended that the statutory framework for under Article III unconstitutionally dilutes the president's appointment power by allowing retired judges to retain significant judicial authority without fresh senatorial consent, potentially violating principles. The piece elicited direct responses from sitting judges, such as Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, and has been cited in subsequent scholarship examining the policy and constitutional implications of senior judgeships, including analyses of their productivity and role in the federal docket. Stras's empirical approach—drawing on data from judicial caseloads and historical practices—bridged constitutional theory with , establishing him as a leading voice on and institutional design in the . Through over a dozen publications between 2004 and 2010, including "Why Justices Should Ride Circuit Again" (2007) advocating for historical practices to foster judicial accountability, and co-authorship of a Federal Courts casebook (2nd ed., 2009), Stras has shaped pedagogical and scholarly understandings of operations, docket dynamics, and appointment politics. His data-driven critiques of politicized nominations, as in "Understanding the New Politics of Judicial Appointments" (2008), highlighted ideological influences on confirmations, informing analyses of contemporary judicial selection processes. These contributions underscore a commitment to textual fidelity in interpreting Article III constraints, influencing originalist perspectives on judicial structure without overt advocacy for methodological labels.

Personal life

Family and personal background

David Stras was born in July 1974 in Wichita, Kansas, where he grew up in a middle-class neighborhood. His paternal grandparents were Holocaust survivors originally from Hungary and Germany, and their accounts of persecution, including survival during Kristallnacht, profoundly shaped Stras's worldview and interest in the legal profession as a means of pursuing justice. Stras married his high school sweetheart, Heather, in 1997. The couple has two sons, Brandon (born circa 2001) and Benjamin (born circa 2007). Stras and his family reside in .

Religious affiliation and public service

David Stras was born to Jewish American parents on July 4, 1974, and identifies as a practicing Jew whose grandparents were Holocaust survivors. His faith has remained central throughout his life, as he has stated, "My faith is important to me... I grew up as a Jew and I've always been a member of a congregation throughout my life." Upon his 2010 appointment to the Minnesota Supreme Court, Stras was noted as the first practicing Jewish justice in the court's history, and he took his oath using a Hebrew Bible during the ceremony. Stras has been actively involved in Jewish communal life, including membership in Bet Shalom Congregation in and broader participation in the Jewish community. He has described himself as "very active" in his , viewing such engagement as integral to his personal commitments, though he maintains that his religious experiences do not directly influence his judicial decisions. This involvement constitutes a form of within his religious community, aligning with his emphasis on faith as a product of personal experience rather than a basis for legal rulings.

References

  1. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/stras-david-ryan
  2. https://mncourts.libguides.com/Stras
  3. https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/1423
  4. https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/biography/128491/david-stras
  5. https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/justice-david-stras-carrie-severino/
  6. https://cdn.zephyrcms.com/ed6688cf-a485-43a4-bed9-753b7efa3ad9/-/inline/yes/rattle-summer-2018-final.pdf
  7. https://www.nyujll.com/s/152_Stras_Final.pdf
  8. https://www.fedbar.org/minnesota-chapter/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2019/10/NW0005118_Bar_Talk_May_v2-pdf.pdf
  9. https://minnesotalawreview.org/supplement/justice-david-stras-tribute/
  10. https://judicialnetwork.com/in-the-news/who-is-justice-david-stras/
  11. https://ballotpedia.org/David_Stras
  12. https://tikvah.org/faculty/judge-david-stras/
  13. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/events/judge-david-r-stras-what-my-grandparents-experiences-holocaust-taught-me-about-first
  14. https://fedsoc.org/bio/david-stras
  15. https://law.uiowa.edu/people/honorable-david-r-stras
  16. https://law.umn.edu/news/2017-05-09-former-law-school-professor-david-r-stras-nominated-8th-circuit-court-appeals
  17. https://vettingroom.org/2017/07/14/justice-david-r-stras/
  18. https://afj.org/nominee/david-stras/
  19. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=headnotes
  20. https://mncourts.gov/About-The-Courts/NewsAndAnnouncements/ItemDetail.aspx?id=968
  21. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/05/08/on-mn-supreme-court-david-stras-found-unlikely-allies
  22. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/09/13/franken-stras-faceoff-leads-to-silly-ad-by-conservative-group
  23. https://electionresults.sos.mn.gov/Results/Index?ersElectionId=2&scenario=AllJudicial&electionDate=8%252F14%252F2012%252012%253A00%253A00%2520AM
  24. https://www.grandforksherald.com/newsmd/incumbents-hold-on-to-minnesota-supreme-court
  25. https://afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/AFJ-Report-David-Stras.pdf
  26. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Stras%2520Responses%2520to%2520QFRs.pdf
  27. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/a-word-for-david-stras.php
  28. https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-confirmation-david-stras-u-s-court-appeals-eighth-circuit/
  29. https://minnlawyer.com/2017/05/10/stras-hasnt-always-fit-conservative-mold/
  30. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/a-word-for-david-stras-2.php
  31. https://emmer.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/emmer-applauds-trump-s-nomination-of-justice-stras
  32. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/11/06/should-felons-have-the-right-to-challenge-their-loss-of-gun-rights-on-a-case-by-case-basis/
  33. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yJT9LVuzJgU
  34. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Stras%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
  35. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3056&context=clr
  36. https://www.law.com/2020/12/16/divided-eighth-circuit-embraces-new-shade-of-chevron-and-auer-deference/
  37. https://nclalegal.org/should-federal-courts-defer-to-state-agency-interpretations-of-federal-or-state-law/
  38. https://mncourts.libguides.com/Stras/pubs
  39. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1152/vote_115_2_00026.htm
  40. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/01/18/stras-moves-toward-confirmation-to-federal-court-judgeship
  41. https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/blog/20180130_david-stras-confirmation
  42. https://www.ncjw.org/news/confirmation-david-stras-confirmation-right-wing-bias-system/
  43. https://data.coloradoan.com/roll-call/confirmation-david-ryan-stras-of-minnesota-to-be-us-circuit-judge-for-the-eighth-circuit/2018-senate-00027/
  44. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/christian-couple-can-sue-over-minnesota-same-sex-marriage-video-law-idUSKCN1VD2LV/
  45. https://apnews.com/general-news-28735954e1a849e380c202fae623cac2
  46. https://www.courthousenews.com/videographers-opposed-to-gay-weddings-prevail-at-8th-circuit/
  47. https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/ruling-minnesota-wedding-videographers-case-properly-prioritizes-1st-amendment
  48. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/federal-appeals-court-strikes-powerful-blow-for-free-speech-religious-freedom/
  49. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/30/four-eighth-circuit-judges-argue-that-felons-dont-categorically-lose-second-amendment-rights/
  50. https://www.wiley.law/newsletter-Eighth-Circuit-Vindicates-Free-Speech-Rights-in-Arkansas-Campaign-Contribution-Case
  51. https://www.courthousenews.com/panel-affirms-block-of-arkansas-campaign-finance-law/
  52. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/05/al-franken-opposes-david-stras-242340
  53. https://lambdalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/lambda_legal_opposes_confirmation_of_david_ryan_stras_1.pdf
  54. https://www.peoplefor.org/blog-posts/letter-groups-oppose-justice-stras-confirmation-based-on-record-and-process
  55. https://www.rnla.org/david_stras_confirmed_to_8th_circuit_with_votes_of_7_democrats
  56. https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/blog/20171129_david-stras-is-extreme
  57. https://www.peoplefor.org/blog-posts/trump-judge-issues-devastating-blow-against-the-voting-rights-act
  58. https://www.americanbridgepac.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/David-Stras-And-Voting-Rights-1.pdf
  59. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/651/
  60. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=951219
  61. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss5/1/
  62. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/365/
  63. https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Stras_Final.pdf
  64. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol62/iss2/11/
  65. https://mn.gov/law-library/research-links/justice-bios/david-stras.jsp
  66. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R46731/R46731.1.pdf
  67. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3057&context=clr
  68. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1451&context=nulr
  69. https://www.presidentialprayerteam.org/2023/11/30/judge-david-stras-eighth-circuit-u-s-court-of-appeals/
  70. https://www.startribune.com/long-wait-over-stras-quickly-takes-eighth-circuit-seat-amid-high-court-chatter/473151233
  71. https://www.wsj.com/articles/my-grandparents-saw-light-even-after-the-dark-of-kristallnacht-1510185475
  72. https://www.fedbar.org/minnesota-chapter//wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2019/10/NW0005118_Bar_Talk_May_v2-pdf.pdf
  73. https://myfraternitylife.org/2018/09/05/rock-chalk-judge/
  74. https://minnlawyer.com/2010/09/17/meet-justice-david-stras/
  75. https://www.twincities.com/2010/05/16/wayzatan-appointed-to-supreme-court/
  76. https://minnlawyer.com/2010/07/19/is-stras-the-first-jewish-minnesota-high-court-justice/
  77. https://kcjc.com/index.php/current-news/latest-news/4974-judge-david-stras-joins-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-eighth-circuit
  78. https://www.timesofisrael.com/meet-the-3-jewish-candidates-on-trumps-supreme-court-shortlist/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.