Nomination and confirmation

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.^[14][15] On September 5, 2017, Minnesota Senator Al Franken announced that he would not return his blue slip for Stras.^[16] On November 29, 2017, a hearing was held on his nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee.^[17]

On January 3, 2018, his nomination was returned to the President under Rule XXXI, Paragraph 6 of the United States Senate.^[18] On January 5, 2018, Trump announced his intent to renominate Stras to a federal judgeship.^[19] On January 8, 2018, his renomination was sent to the Senate.^[20] On January 18, 2018, his nomination was reported out of committee by a 13–8 vote.^[21] On January 29, 2018, the Senate invoked cloture on his nomination by a 57–41 vote.^[22] On January 30, 2018, David Stras's nomination was confirmed by the Senate by a 56–42 vote.^[23] He received his judicial commission on January 31, 2018.^[24]

Notable opinions

• 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."^[25]

• 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 noted 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.^[26]

• On November 6, 2019, Stras wrote a concurring opinion in a case challenging an Arkansas anti-loitering statute. Stras argued that the statewide injunction originally issued by the federal district court was an unjustified "universal preliminary injunction."^[27] 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 pointed out 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.^[28] On June 1, 2021, the Eighth Circuit issued a new opinion which 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 also argued that the panel majority nonetheless did not interpret the regulatory text correctly.^[29]

• 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. Stras 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."^[30]
• 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 an "items or services" provided.^[31]
• On November 30, 2022, Stras wrote an opinion for the Eighth Circuit holding unconstitutional Anoka County's policy of referring every foreign-born detainee 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.^[32]
• On April 20, 2023, Stras wrote an opinion for the Eighth Circuit vacating a district court's decision that charter schools in Missouri were required to spend state funds on desegregation measures. Stras wrote that the charter 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."^[33]
• 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."^[34]
• On August 30, 2023, Stras dissented from the Eighth Circuit's denial of rehearing en banc in a case challenging the constitutional of the federal felon-in-possession statute under the Second Amendment. Citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Stras 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. Stras 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.^[35]
• 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 written by Judge Jed Rakoff, gave the EPA sixty days to either ban chlorpyrifos or reduce its approvals of chlorphyrifos to safe levels.^[36] The EPA banned chlorphyrifos. Vacating that decision, Stras wrote that despite the "short turnaround time" required by the Ninth Circuit, 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.^[37]
• 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.^[38] Citing Alexander v. Sandoval, Stras wrote that the "text and structure" of the Voting Rights Act allow only the Attorney General, not private parties, to bring Section 2 lawsuits. The decision was widely covered by national media.^[39]
• 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.^[40] Stras wrote that China's alleged actions were "classic anticompetitive behavior" that was not protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.