Staff Reports
Good news for the First Amendment and bad news for Minnesota’s political class: the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit just stepped in and told state leaders they can’t criminalize one side of a hot political debate. In a published opinion by Judge David R. Stras, a three‑judge panel reversed part of a lower court and ordered a preliminary injunction protecting the Minnesota Voters Alliance and its members from enforcement of Minn. Stat. § 211B.075 as applied to their speech about felon voting. That’s the development. Everything else is background noise.
What the Eighth Circuit actually held
The court found the statute operates as a content‑based restriction on political speech and therefore must survive strict scrutiny. It did not. The panel said Minnesota’s law, as applied, is both overbroad and underinclusive and effectively authorizes a prior restraint without proper safeguards. In plain English: the state cannot attach criminal and civil penalties to one side of a live legal debate about who is allowed to vote, and then call that “protecting elections.” Judges Stras, Gruender, and Kobes told Minnesota to back off while the rest of the lawsuit plays out.
Why this matters for free speech and election speech
This ruling goes to the secure core of the First Amendment — speech about how we run elections and who gets to vote. Minn. Stat. § 211B.075 criminalizes transmitting statements that the speaker “knows to be materially false” and that “intend to impede” voting within 60 days of an election. The Eighth Circuit rightly warned that sweeping civil injunctions in that fraught pre‑election window look very much like prior restraints. If the state can muzzle one side now, what stops it from muzzling the other side later? Short answer: the Constitution.
How Minnesota officials painted themselves into this corner
The problem wasn’t just a clumsy statute. It was a political reflex: when one side loses a debate, the instinct in some statehouses is to write a law that makes the debate illegal instead of winning it on the merits. Attorney General Keith Ellison and Anoka County’s office pushed the law’s reach; the ACLU even supported it, which will surprise nobody who remembers the ACLU used to say it loved free speech. The court’s view is stark: government cannot license one side to “fight freestyle” while forcing the other to follow the Marquis of Queensberry rules.
What happens next — and why conservatives should care
The injunction protects the Minnesota Voters Alliance for now and prevents the state from enforcing the challenged parts of § 211B.075 against these plaintiffs. The district court will enter that injunction, and defendants may seek rehearing en banc or appeal to the Supreme Court. This case will matter to any state tempted to police political claims near elections. Conservatives who care about free speech and fair play should cheer this result: protecting political speech means letting voters hear both sides, sort the facts, and decide — not letting prosecutors pick winners and losers in political fights.
