admin
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stepped in this week and told Minnesota to stop using its voter‑misinformation law to silence the Minnesota Voters Alliance while the case plays out. In a clear pushback against government censorship, a three‑judge panel said the alliance and its members can keep saying that some felons may not be eligible to vote without facing criminal or civil penalties under the challenged statute for now.
Eighth Circuit blocks enforcement against Minnesota Voters Alliance
The panel reversed part of a lower court ruling and ordered the district court to enter a preliminary injunction protecting the Minnesota Voters Alliance and its members from enforcement of the challenged provision of Minnesota Statutes §211B.075. Judges on the panel reviewed an appeal from a district‑court denial of injunctive relief and concluded the group had standing and deserved protection while the legal fight continues. The case names Attorney General Keith Ellison and Anoka County Attorney Brad Johnson as defendants, and the opinion was written by Judge David R. Stras.
Why the court found the law likely unconstitutional as applied
The court said the Alliance’s statements fall inside core political speech. The panel called the statute content‑based and said that triggers strict scrutiny — the toughest test under the First Amendment. The judges also highlighted that the law allows courts to block speech before it happens, a classic prior restraint, and that the statute is both underinclusive and vague in parts. In short, Minnesota’s attempt to criminalize some political claims about voting rights failed to meet the strict standards required to curb speech.
What this ruling means for election‑misinformation laws and free speech
Practically, the ruling means the Minnesota Voters Alliance can continue its advocacy about felon voting eligibility without immediate fear of prosecution or civil suits under that provision while the case goes forward. The court left other parts of the law open to challenge, so this is not a total knockout for Minnesota’s election statutes — but it is a major warning shot. Expect further litigation and possible appeals. This decision will likely be cited in other cases where states try to use criminal or civil penalties to police political speech around elections.
Minnesota lawmakers and prosecutors thought they had a convenient tool to police messy political debate. The Eighth Circuit politely disagreed. If you want to protect free speech, you don’t get to pick winners and losers based on who shouts loudest — and you certainly don’t get to outsource censorship to prosecutors and private civil suits. The courts just reminded the state of that simple lesson.
