Cases

Polling place restrictions on voter apparel. U.S. Supreme Court decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 138 S.Ct. 1876 (2018). Background: Political organization, registered voter, and county election judge brought action against Minnesota Secretary of State and county election officials, asserting facial and as-applied First Amendment challenges to Minnesota statute prohibiting any person from wearing a political badge, political button, or other political insignia inside a polling place on election day. The Supreme Court, held that:  Minnesota’s political apparel ban restricted form of expression protected by First Amendment; a polling place in Minnesota qualifies as a nonpublic forum, for First Amendment purposes; Minnesota’s political apparel ban pursued permissible objective of setting polling place aside as island of calm in which voters could peacefully contemplate their choices; but, Minnesota’s political apparel ban was not capable of reasoned application and thus violated Free Speech Clause.

Media/Documents

• https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/minnesota-voters-alliance-v-mansky/
• https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1435

Background: Five employees, who were terminated for refusing COVID-19 vaccinations or testing, brought action against their employer under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) for allegedly failing to accommodate their Christian religious beliefs.

Holdings: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held: (1) two employees’ eventual terminations for not complying with employer’s COVID-19 policy were reasonably related to their administrative charges submitted prior to their terminations, and thus they satisfied Title VII’s exhaustion requirement; (2) employees plausibly pled they had Christian religious beliefs that conflicted with employer’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement; (3) employees informed employer that their sincerely held Christian beliefs prevented them from complying with employer’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement; and (4) the Minnesota Human Rights Act provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs; abrogating Balow v. Olmsted Medical Center, 2023 WL 2776028.

Media/Documents

• https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/mayo-clinic-must-face-religious-bias-claims-over-covid-vaccine-policy-court-2024-05-24/

Background: Former hospital employees brought suit against hospital under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination based on hospital’s refusal to exempt them from its COVID-19 vaccination requirement.

Holdings: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held: (1) at the pleading stage of a Title VII suit based on an employee’s allegation that an employer’s failure to exempt the employee from a vaccination requirement amounts to religious discrimination, the controlling inquiry is whether the employee plausibly based their vaccination-exemption request at least in part on an aspect of their religious belief or practice, and (2) employees sufficiently pleaded that their requests for an exemption from hospital’s vaccine mandate were based at least in part on an aspect of their religious belief or practice, as required for them to state claims under Title VII for failure to accommodate their religious beliefs.

Background: Christian former employees brought action against employer, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII after they were fired following denial of exemption from COVID-19 vaccination requirement.

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held that employees sufficiently alleged that they sought exemptions from employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate based on some aspect of their religious belief or observance, so as to state claim for religious discrimination under Title VII.

Brown County Circuit Court (Jan. 26, 2024) granted directed verdict in disorderly conduct criminal case against witness for pointing out that City of Green Bay Clerk was violating the law by accepting multiple ballots from individual in clerk’s office. This success is related to no. 12 above because the City of Green Bay Clerk, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, was violating the law. The investigation of the purported disorderly was only initiated after the WEC complaint was filed.

Media/Documents

• https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/31/judge-throws-out-green-bays-retaliatory-disorderly-conduct-citation-against-election-observer/

City of Green Bay clerk accepting multiple ballots from individual in clerk’s office. Wisconsin Voter Alliance complaint filed in Wisconsin Elections Commission. Case No. 22-37. The Wisconsin Elections Commission held that there was probable cause that an election law had been violated.

Media/Documents

• https://fox11online.com/news/local/green-bay-city-clerk-likely-violated-absentee-ballot-law-wec-says-celestine-jeffreys-election-policy-wisconsin-elections-commission

City of Ypsilanti, Michigan, compelling landlords to provide voter registration materials to tenants. Complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Case No. 23-11116 USDC-MI(E) (2023). Background: Landlord filed complaint against City of Ypsilanti, Michigan, alleging that city ordinances requiring landlords to provide voter-registration information to new tenants violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Instead of answering the complaint, the landlord offered to repeal the constitutionally offensive ordinance. The City of Ypsilanti repealed the ordinance in July of 2023.

Media/Documents

• https://www.wemu.org/wemu-news/2023-07-26/ypsilanti-city-council-repeals-ordinance-requiring-landlords-to-provide-voting-information-to-tenants

City of East Lansing, Michigan, compelling landlords to provide voter registration materials to tenants. Complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Case No. 23-0278 USDC-MI(W) (2023). Background: Landlord filed complaint against City of East Lansing, Michigan, alleging that city ordinances requiring landlords to provide voter-registration information to new tenants violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Instead of answering the complaint, the landlord offered to repeal the constitutionally offensive ordinance. The City of East Lansing repealed the ordinance in April of 2023.

Media/Documents

• https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2023/03/22/east-lansing-ordinance-landlords-tenants-voting-information-repeal-lawsuit/70038468007/
• https://news.jrn.msu.edu/2023/04/east-lansing-landlords-win-fight-against-city-as-council-suspends-voter-registration-ordinance/

Ineligible adjudicated incompetent voting information access. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord, 2023 WL 8910882 (Wis.App., 2023), held that if the voter ineligibility determination is, in fact, pertinent to the finding of incompetency, Wisconsin Voter Alliance has not only demonstrated a need for this information but has demonstrated that it is entitled to the requested Notices (in full or redacted form) pursuant to the Public Records Law. WVA has, therefore, met all of the prerequisites to support its petition for a writ of mandamus.

Media/Documents

• https://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/0503cal.pdf

Coin dealers and association of coin dealers brought § 1983 action against Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Commerce, seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief, and contending that statute regulating bullion product dealers violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, 550 F.Supp.3d 637, partially granted and partially denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and partially granted and partially denied Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeals held that: registration provisions in Minnesota statute regulating bullion transactions violated the dormant Commerce Clause under the doctrine of extraterritoriality; and surety bond requirement violated the dormant Commerce Clause under the doctrine of extraterritoriality.

Reversed and remanded.

Media/Documents

• Principal Brief – October 25, 2021
• Response Brief – November 23, 2021
• Reply Brief – December 20, 2021
• Opinion – October 31, 2022
• https://coinweek.com/small-business-investors-hobbyists-sue-minnesota-for-criminalizing-their-pursuits/

Background: Property owners filed § 1983 action alleging that city’s permit ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, and asserting claims for First Amendment retaliation, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution.
Holdings: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal, in part, holding and remanding for further proceedings. The Court held that one of two owners pled plausible malicious prosecution claim.

Background: Parents of private-school students, private schools, and association of religious and independent schools brought petition for original action against county health official, alleging that official’s emergency order closing all schools in county for in-person instruction in grades 3-12 in response to COVID-19 pandemic exceeded official’s statutory authority and violated their fundamental right to the free exercise of religion, as well as parents’ fundamental right to direct upbringing and education of their children, under Wisconsin Constitution.

Holdings: The Supreme Court held that: (1) official did not have power to issue order closing schools in response to COVID-19 pandemic; (2) petitioners demonstrated that they had sincerely held religious beliefs, as required to satisfy first factor of compelling-state-interest/least-restrictive-alternative test for determining whether order violated their fundamental right to free exercise of religion under Wisconsin Constitution; (3) petitioners demonstrated that order burdened their sincerely held religious beliefs, as required to satisfy second factor of compelling-state-interest/least-restrictive-alternative test for determining whether order violated their fundamental right to free exercise of religion under Wisconsin Constitution; and (4) order was not least-restrictive means of serving county’s compelling interest in slowing the spread of disease, and thus order violated petitioners’ fundamental right to free exercise of religion under Wisconsin Constitution.

Media/Documents

• https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=376845

Background: Challengers sought declaration that Department of Health Services (DHS) Secretary-designee’s COVID-19-related emergency order that limited the size of indoor public gatherings was unlawful, and challengers also sought a temporary injunction barring order’s enforcement. The Circuit Court, Sawyer County, denied injunctive relief. Challengers appealed. The Court of Appeals summarily reversed. DHS petitioned for review.

Holdings: The Supreme Court reversed holding that: (1) the Court would decide emergency order’s validity even though order’s expiration had rendered the appeal moot, and (2) the emergency order was a “rule” and thus had to be promulgated through rulemaking in order to be enforceable.

Media/Documents

• https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/order/DisplayDocImage.pdf?docId=357042

Background: City resident, who had dispute with city about alleged overuse of public park by adjoining youth center and charter school, brought § 1983 action against city, county attorney, and police officers seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against harassment statute and city ordinance prohibiting photography and recording of children in park without consent, alleging violation of First Amendment free speech rights.

Holdings: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, in part, the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held: (1) resident’s photography and recording of children in planned effort to notify the public of dispute about park was protected speech; and (2) the ordinance violated free speech guarantee as applied.

Media/Documents

• https://www.rcfp.org/briefs-comments/ness-v-city-of-bloomington/

City of St. Paul, Minnesota, compelling landlords to provide voter registration materials to tenants. The U.S. District Court in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Saint Paul and City of Minneapolis, 442 F.Supp.3d 1109 (D.Minn. 2020). Background: Landlords brought action against cities, alleging that city ordinances requiring landlords to provide voter-registration information to new tenants violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The U.S. District Court held that: voter-registration flyers were government speech; strict scrutiny analysis applied to determine constitutionality of ordinances; cities identified compelling government interests served by ordinances; and cities failed to demonstrate that ordinances were narrowly tailored to serve compelling government interest.

Media/Documents

• https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-rules-twin-cities-cant-force-landlords-to-give-tenants-voting-info/

School promotes bond referendum without filing campaign finance report. The Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings in Concerned Citizens of the Eveleth-Gilbert and Virginia School Districts, Complainant, vs. Eveleth-Gilbert and Virginia School Districts, OAH 82-0325-36868 (Office of Administrative Hearings)(2020). Background: Eveleth-Gilbert and Virginia school district resident filed an administrative complaint against the school district for promoting a bond referendum without filing a campaign finance report. The OAH held that the city’s flyer was promotional and the city had violated campaign finance law by not filing a report.

Media/Documents

• https://mn.gov/oah/assets/0325-36868-concerned-citizens-eveleth-gilbert-virginia-school-districts-campaign-violation-report_tcm19-452436.pdf

Background: After the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approved a name change to lake, and petition for writ of certiorari made by association of residents and business owners surrounding lake opposing the name change was denied, the association petitioned for a writ of quo warranto.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, reversing the lower court’s dismissal, held that: (1) association had standing, as taxpayers, to petition for a writ of quo warranto; (2) when DNR changed name of lake, it engaged in an ongoing exercise of power, such that association stated a claim upon which relief could be granted; and (3) DNR exceeded its statutory authority when it changed the name of lake without cooperating with county boards. This decision was later reversed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Media/Documents

• https://contestedhistories.org/wp-content/uploads/USA-Lake-Calhoun-Bde-Maka-Ska.pdf

Background: Voter rights group brought action against Office of Secretary of State, seeking production of information from state voter registration system.

Holding: The Court of Appeals held that data on registered voter status, reason for a challenge, and voter history on active, inactive, or deleted Minnesota voters are public data. This decision was later reversed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Display of nonconforming lawn signs continually violated Minnesota statute. The Minnesota Court of Appeals in Lewison v. Hutchinson, 929 N.W.2d 444 (2019). Background: Political candidate and his campaign committee appealed from decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) determining that they prepared and disseminated campaign material without required disclaimer. The Court of Appeals held that: statute that required campaign materials to include disclaimer did not impermissibly restrict right to free speech; public display of lawn signs without required disclaimer was continuing violation of statute requiring disclaimer; and substantial evidence supported OAH finding that candidate had disseminated nonconforming lawn signs for purpose of influencing voting at election.

Media/Documents

• https://casetext.com/case/lewison-v-hutchinson

Background: Male high school students brought action alleging that Minnesota high school athletic league rule prohibiting boys from participating on high school competitive dance teams violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

Holdings: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held: (1) heightened likely-to-prevail standard for determining the likelihood of success on the merits did not apply to motion; (2) students had fair chance of prevailing on equal protection claim, as required to support preliminary injunction; (3) students established irreparable harm, as required to support preliminary injunction; and (4) public interest and balance of harms supported preliminary injunction.

Media/Documents

• https://pacificlegal.org/case/d-m-z-g-v-minnesota-state-high-school-league/

City council members through committee indiscriminately violate campaign finance laws. The Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings in Shannon Bruce v. Our Minnetrista, et al., Case No. OAH 71-0325-35774 (2019). Background: Minnetrista, Minnesota resident brought claimt that City Council member through “Our Minnetrista” organization were violating campaign finance laws. The Office of Administrative Hearings made the following findings as noted in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and order, filed June 7, 2019. In voting districts with less than 100,000 residents cannot accept more than $600 in contributions from an individual or committee. Our Minnetrista is a committee and handled all of contributions and disbursements for the campaigns for Mortenson, Thoele, Whalen and Tschumperlin, and therefore the candidates violated the law. Our Minnetrista, specifically Kolb and Danielson, were ordered to pay a fine of $2,000. Mortenson was ordered to pay a fine of $1,200 — $600 for 2014 and $600 for 2018. Thoele and Whalen were ordered to pay a fine of $600 for the 2014 election. Tschumperlin was ordered to pay a fine of $600 for the 2018 election.

Media/Documents

• https://mn.gov/oah/assets/0325-35774-bruce-our-minnetrista-campaign-violation-report_tcm19-392669.pdf

Background: Native American farmer filed an action against government, alleging that the government breached a settlement agreement of a class action discrimination suit brought by Native American farmers against the Department of Agriculture and breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, when government directed farmer’s two witnesses, who were employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to refrain from testifying and providing evidence on behalf of the farmer in support of his claim for settlement funds.

Holdings: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held: (1) finality provision in settlement agreement did not bar farmer’s claims, and (2) farmer stated plausible claims against government.

Background: Driver’s license holders brought actions against cities, counties, and other government entities in Minnesota, employees and agents of those entities, current and former Commissioners of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS), and employees and agents of DPS, alleging violations of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) arising from alleged improper access to or disclosure of personal information from motor vehicle records without a permissible purpose.

Holdings: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, in part, the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held that 3 of the 12 plaintiffs had stated claims alleging violations of DPPA.

Background: Defendant was convicted in the District Court, Isanti County, after a stipulated-facts trial, of criminal defamation for posting sexually explicit internet ads containing the cellular telephone numbers of defendant’s former girlfriend and her minor daughter. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals reversed holding that: (1) criminal defamation statute was unconstitutionally overbroad, and (2) statute was not susceptible to a narrowing construction.

Media/Documents

• https://www.courthousenews.com/criminal-defamation-law-struck-down-in-mn/

Background: Following termination, former county employee brought action against county and members of county board of commissioners, asserting that defendants violated his due process rights, discriminated against him on the basis of his marital status, breached his contract, and defamed him. Defendants removed case to federal court and subsequently filed motion to dismiss

Holdings: The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Winona County’s motion: (1) former employee was precluded from obtaining writ of mandamus as remedy for alleged violations of his rights to pre-termination and post-termination hearings; and (2) under Minnesota law, former employee’s claims for defamation and breach of contract could only be asserted in certiorari proceeding. The case settled.

Media/Documents

• https://www.postbulletin.com/newsmd/winona-county-settles-wrongful-termination-lawsuit

Background: Relator challenged a Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision making a fraud determination.

Holding: The Court of Appeals reversed the agency’s fraud determination. Later, it affirmed a subsequent appeal.

28. City promotes charter amendment without filing campaign finance report. Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings in Mike Trehus v. City of Lino Lakes, et al., City of Lino Lakes, Case No. OAH 48-0325-31026 (Office of Administrative Hearings) (2014). Background: Lino Lakes, Minnesota, resident filed an administrative complaint against the City of Lino Lake for promoting a charter amendment without filing a campaign finance report. The OAH held that the city’s flyer was promotional and the city had violated campaign finance law by not filing a report.

Media/Documents

• https://mn.gov/oah/assets/0325-31026%20Trehus%20Lino%20Lakes%20Report_tcm19-164350.pdf

Background: Employer that sponsored employees’ group health insurance plan, and its controlling shareholder, brought action challenging contraceptive mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that District Court’s order would be vacated and the case remanded to allow the Court to determine whether plaintiffs had standing to bring the action.

Media/Documents

• https://thecatholicspirit.com/uncategorized/minnesota-business-owners-opposing-hhs-mandate-await-supreme-court-decision/

Secretary of State legally unauthorized to initiate state on-line voter registration system. Ramsey County District Court, Minnesota decision in File No. 62–CV–13–7718 (Apr. 18, 2014), referred to in decision by Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2015 WL 2457010. Background: Political group sued Secretary of State for writ of quo warranto to prevent legally unauthorized on-line voter registration by Secretary of States. The Minnesota state court issued the writ of quo warranto requiring Secretary of State to discontinue the legally unauthorized online voter registration system.

Media/Documents

• https://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/1/Public/Civil/Order-62CV137718-20140428.pdf

Statutory ban on false political speech authorizes administrative complaints against truthful political statements. The United States Court of Appeals in 281 Care Committee v. Arneson, 766 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2014). Background: Advocacy organizations sued Minnesota Attorney General and four county attorneys, alleging that their free speech rights were violated by provision of Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA) making it a crime to knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth make a false statement about a proposed ballot initiative. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, 2010 WL 610935, dismissed complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, held in the alternative that it would dismiss complaint for failing to state a claim, and denied organizations’ motion for summary judgment. Organizations appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Beam, Circuit Judge, 638 F.3d 621, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. On remand, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied organizations’ motion for summary judgment, granted of summary judgment in favor of defendants, and dismissed all claims with prejudice. Organizations appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals held, in part, that: organizations alleged injury in fact sufficient to support standing; statute making it a crime to make false statement about proposed ballot initiative was subject to strict scrutiny; and statute was not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.

Media/Documents

• https://casetext.com/case/281-care-comm-v-arneson-1

School District campaign finance disclosures statute of limitations issue. The Court in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Anoka Hennepin School Dist., 2013 WL 6725847 (2013). Background: Relators, in part, challenged a decision of an administrative-law judge (ALJ) dismissing as untimely their complaint against respondent school district that alleged violations of the Minnesota Campaign Financial Reports Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 211A.01–.14 (2012). Plaintiffs won that part of the appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the limitations period on a claim that the school district failed to meet its reporting obligations would not run until reports were required to be filed and concluded that the ALJ erred by determining that relators’ financial-reporting claim was untimely.

Media/Documents

• https://casetext.com/case/minn-voters-alliance-v-anoka-hennepin-sch-dist-1

State school district not disclosing and reporting promotional campaign statements assuming it was not a corporation under the Minnesota Campaign Financial Reports Act. The Minnesota Supreme Court in Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School Dist., 819 N.W.2d 129 (2012). Background: Complainants brought action against school district and school board members, alleging that, prior to election ballot referendum, district and board violated Campaign Financial Reports Act by failing to file required financial reports. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals, 802 N.W.2d 393,a ffirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. District petitioned for further review, which was granted. The Minnesota Supreme Court held, in part, that: school district was a corporation within meaning of Campaign Financial Reports Act; and, on issue of first impression, complainants established prima facie case that district made promotional statements which needed to be reported.

Media/Documents

• https://timberjay.com/stories/district-fined-over-flawed-campaign-report,12115

State legislature had not exceeded its authority in writing a proposed constitutional amendment requiring voter identification. The Minnesota Supreme Court in League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie, 819 N.W.2d 636 (2012). Background: Petitioners filed suit against the Secretary of State seeking to enjoin the Secretary from placing on the general election ballot a question pertaining to the proposed voter identification and provisional ballot constitutional amendment. The State House of Representatives and the State senate, individual legislators, and nonprofit organization filed motions to intervene. The Minnesota Supreme Court held, in part, that: ballot question on a proposed constitutional amendment implementing a photographic identification requirement for voters was not so unreasonable or misleading as to be a palpable evasion of requirement of State Constitution that constitutional amendments be submitted to a popular vote. Petition denied.

Media/Documents

• https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/constamd.pdf

Secretary of State exceeded authority in writing ballot titles for proposed constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman. The Minnesota Supreme Court in Limmer v. Ritchie, 819 N.W.2d 622 2012 WL (2012). Background: Petitioners sought an order requiring the Secretary of State to use the titles designated by the Legislature for two proposed constitutional amendment ballot questions that would appear on general election ballot. Holding: The Supreme Court held that Secretary of State exceeded his statutory authority by providing titles for questions printed on the ballot regarding proposed constitutional amendments that were different from those titles passed by the legislature.

Media/Documents

• https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/constamd.pdf

Background: Religious ceremony participant brought action to recover a religious statue from its creator with whom participant had an alleged agreement to purchase statue. The District Court, Ramsey County denied creator’s request for a jury trial, conducted a court trial, and decided in favor of participant. Creator appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded holding that: (1) a replevin action is an action at law giving rise to a right to a trial by jury, and (2) participant’s cause of action was a replevin action.

Background: Deputy Sheriff who was fired after he offered to testify in federal lawsuit concerning whether sheriff had violated First Amendment in denying two individuals nonprofessional permits to carry weapons filed First Amendment retaliatory discharge suit against sheriff. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

Holdings: The U.S. District Court held that: (1) deputy was speaking as private citizen when he made offer to testify; (2) deputy’s speech was about a matter of public concern; (3) Pickering balancing test favored deputy, whose speech was protected; (4) deputy’s firing was adverse employment action; (5) deputy’s protected speech was a motivating factor in sheriff’s decision to fire him for insubordination; and (6) deputy would not have been fired for alternative reasons.

Background: Applicants filed suit alleging that sheriff’s decision to deny their applications for concealed weapons permits was in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Holdings: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa held that sheriff violated applicant’s First Amendment rights by denying his application for concealed weapons permit because applicant engaged in protected activity and because of community’s reaction to his protected activities, but sheriff did not violate eighteen year old applicant’s First Amendment rights where denial of his application was based on his concerns about providing a concealed weapons permit to an individual under 21 years of age.

Background: A former tribal employee brought a tortious interference claim against tribal member. District court dismissed tort claim based on tribe’s sovereign immunity.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court decision because the tribe was neither a necessary nor indispensable party to a tortious interference claim against a tribal member by a former tribal employee.

Background: City held property owner liable for parking on owner’s property.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals held that the vehicle parked on the owner’s property was not in violation of a city ordinance.

Statutory disclaimer requirement applied to anonymous political literature compelling disclosure of publisher of political literature. The Minnesota Court of Appeals in Riley v. Jankowski, 713 N.W.2d 379 (2006). Background: Voter filed complaints with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) alleging that successful candidates in city council election prepared and disseminated false campaign materials and distributed campaign material without a required disclaimer. After the claims were joined and following a hearing, a panel of ALJs found that candidates violated campaign laws. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision holding that the statute requiring a disclaimer on campaign literature was overbroad and unconstitutionally restricted pure speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Media/Documents

• https://casetext.com/case/riley-v-jankowski

Background: In an order on an account in a conservatorship, the district court surcharged conservator Louise Bouta and her surety for breach of a fiduciary duty in Bouta’s management of Thomas Kimel’s estate. Bouta appealed on three grounds: that inadequate notice of the nature of the alleged breach and potential personal liability violated her rights.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision.

Background: Landlord of federally subsidized housing sued Commissioner of Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and others, seeking to prepay federally-subsidized mortgage loan without complying with certain state statutes applicable to federally-subsidized housing.

Holdings: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that: (1) state statutes were preempted by federal statutes based on Supremacy Clause; (2) state statutes were expressly preempted under Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act’s (LIHPRHA) preemption provision; and (3) state statutes were also impliedly preempted by federal statutes and regulatory scheme.

Background: Taxpayers brought action against school district, seeking to close elementary school on basis that school’s creation and operation violated First Amendment’s guarantee against establishment of religion.

Holdings: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Court held that: (1) neither opening of school primarily attended by students belonging to particular religious group nor granting of parents’ requests for exemptions from use of technology violated Establishment Clause; (2) school district did not improperly endorse religion; and (3) district’s actions did not violate state constitution.

Conservator petitioned to relocate conservatee from her home to out-of-state congregate-living apartment.   The District Court, Hennepin County, granted petition. Conservatee appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals held that trial court abused its discretion in granting relocation petition.