Ministerial Exception Doctrine Applies to Title VII Claim of Business Prof at Christian University

In Schmidt v. University of Northwestern- St. Paul, (D MN, June 5, 2025), a Minnesota federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars the court from deciding plaintiff's Title VII claim but sought further briefing on whether it also bars plaintiff's negligent supervision claim. At issue was the hostile environment experienced by plaintiff who had been hired as an Assistant Professor of Business and Program Manager at a Christian university. Plaintiff claims she was subjected to racial discrimination, intimidation and retaliation, and when she reported it, the University took no action. The court said in part:

... Schmidt’s primary argument is that the University is not a religious institution because it did not exercise ecclesiastical decision-making authority over Schmidt.  Schmidt argues that an entity should not qualify as a religious institution for the ministerial exception unless it employs a form of ecclesiastical governance within its structure—in other words, unless an affiliated church is vested with authority to make decisions within the entity. 

The Court finds that the University is a religious institution for the ministerial exception....

Everything considered, and though a close call, the Court finds that Schmidt was a minister for the ministerial exception.  Though Schmidt did not have “minister” in her title, and her position did not require significant formal religious training, the record indicates that the University entrusted her directly “with the responsibility of educating [her] students in the faith” and “expected [her] to guide [her] students, by word and deed, toward the goal of living their lives in accordance with the faith.”...

The above caselaw emphasizes the importance of keeping courts out of religious institution’s internal governance decisions, even if the claims arise under state law.  But it is unclear at this juncture whether the negligent supervision claim here would implicate ecclesiastical matters, and thus whether the ministerial exception applies to Schmidt’s negligent supervision claim....

Suit Challenges Minnesota Policies Allowing Transgender Girls to Compete on Girl's High School Teams

A Title IX suit was filed this week in a Minnesota federal district court by an advocacy organization challenging Minnesota's high school policies on participation in sports by transgender women. The complaint (full text) in Female Athletes United v. Ellison, (D MN, filed 5/19/2025), alleges in part:

120.  Minnesota allows athletes to participate in sports solely based on gender identity. There are no limitations based on testosterone level, whether male puberty has been started or completed, or other metrics know to magnify the physiological advantage males have over women, advantages raising safety concerns for female athletes....

180. Under Title IX, Defendants are required to provide competitive opportunities for females that accommodate them by “equally reflect[ing] their abilities” and offer “equal opportunity in . . . levels of competition” as compared to the competitive opportunities enjoyed by boys. 

181. Because of the measurable physical advantages that male athletes enjoy both before and after puberty, regardless of whether puberty blockers or testosterone suppression was administered, the athletic opportunities of girls are unequal when males are allowed to compete against them or compete with them for spots or playing time on their team....

187. Providing equivalent treatment and opportunities entails ensuring that both sexes have equal opportunities to participate and compete in competitive athletics, both in-season and post-season. Further, it precludes policies that are “discriminatory in language or effect” or have the effect of denying “equality of athletic opportunity.”  

188. Minnesota’s Policy has a detrimental effect on girls’ opportunities to compete safely and on a level playing field....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filling of the lawsuit.

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Moratorium Delaying Building of Mosque

In Zikar Holdings, LLC v. Ruhland, (D MN, Dec. 26, 2024), a Minnesota federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the city of Lino Lakes from enforcing a one-year moratorium on development of an area of the city where plaintiffs had proposed to build a housing development that included a mosque. Plaintiffs contended that the moratorium was motivated by discriminatory intent in violation of the free exercise clause, RLUIPA and the Fair Housing Act. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs are likely to show that the Moratorium might have delayed Plaintiffs’ ability to build a place of worship and potential future residences near it in the northwest corner of Lino Lakes.  The language of the Moratorium, however, places no permanent restrictions on Plaintiff’s ability to build anything and, perhaps more importantly, it places no restriction on Plaintiff’s ability to seek development of a mosque elsewhere in the City or to worship elsewhere in the City.  Plaintiffs have therefore not shown that they are likely to prove the Moratorium was a “substantial burden” on their ability to practice Islam....

On this evidence, the Court believes a reasonable juror could infer that the Moratorium was pretextual.  However, the evidence presented at this stage, prior to discovery, is not so strong that it satisfies the heightened Rounds standard.  The motives and beliefs of the council members, as well as the basis for the timing of the Moratorium decision remain unknown at this stage, and absent additional circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that supporting the Moratorium reflected the importance of complying with the 2040 Plan and prudent infrastructure and resource planning.  Thus, the Court concludes that this factor is neutral, weighing neither in favor of nor against granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion.....

8th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Suit for Failure to Accommodate Religious Objections to Vaccine Mandate

In Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, (8th Cir., May 24, 2024), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Minnesota federal district court's dismissal of suits by Mayo Clinic employees who sought accommodations because their employer's Covid vaccine mandate violated their religious beliefs. The court concluded that two of the employees did properly exhaust their administrative remedies under Title VII. It also found that all the employees had adequately pleaded a conflict between their Christian religious beliefs and the vaccine mandate. Finally, it concluded that the Minnesota Human Rights Act provides a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs.

Pharmacist Violated Sex Discrimination Ban in Refusing to Fill Prescription for Emergency Contraceptive

 In Anderson v. Aitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC, (MN App., March 18, 2024), a Minnesota state appellate court held that a pharmacist violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act that prohibits intentionally refusing to do business with a person because of the person's sex. The pharmacist refused to dispense plaintiff's prescription for the emergency contraceptive ella because of his conscientious objection to dispensing any medication that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg. The statute defines sex discrimination as including discrimination because of pregnancy. The court said in part:

Badeaux refused to dispense Anderson’s valid prescription because Badeaux believed she may have been pregnant.  Thus, pregnancy was a substantial causative factor in Badeaux’s refusal to dispense ella....

Badeaux did not assert a constitutional defense in district court and does not argue that the MHRA actually violates his constitutional rights.  Instead, he argues on appeal that the sex-discrimination language in the MHRA should be interpreted to avoid a constitutional conflict.... But we do not apply the constitutional-avoidance canon to a party’s proposed interpretation of a statute if the interpretation is contrary to the plain language of the statute.

The court however refused to reverse the jury's finding that the Pharmacy, as opposed to the individual pharmacist, did not violate the sex discrimination ban. The court said in part:

The evidence shows that Aitkin Pharmacy wanted to fill all valid prescriptions and had a pharmacist on staff who was willing to dispense emergency contraception.  The evidence also shows that, when Badeaux called Anderson on January 21, he communicated both that he was unwilling to dispense ella and that there was another pharmacist scheduled to work who was willing to dispense her prescription.... [T]here is a reasonable theory of the evidence to support the verdict that Aitkin Pharmacy did not intentionally refuse to do business with Anderson...

The court also concluded that, because of erroneous jury instructions, plaintiff should have been granted a new trial on her claim that the pharmacy violated the state's public accommodation law that bans denial of the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services in places of public accommodation because of sex. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Minnesota Court Hears Oral Arguments on Pharmacist's Refusal To Dispense Morning-After Pill

The Minnesota Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Anderson v. Aitkin Pharmacy Services, LLC, (Dec. 21, 2023). At issue is whether a pharmacist violated the sex discrimination provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act when, because of his religious belief, he refused to dispense the morning-after emergency contraception drug ella and instead referred her to another pharmacist who could fill her prescription the next day. ADF issued a press release regarding the case.

Free Speech and Free Exercise Challenges to Law Restricting Sidewalk Counselors Moves Ahead

In Pro-Life Action Ministries v. City of Minneapolis, (D MN, Oct. 30,2022), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed void-for-vagueness and an expressive-association challenges to a Minneapolis ordinance that bans physically disrupting access to a reproductive healthcare facility.  The court however refused to dismiss plaintiff's free speech, free exercise of religion and overbreadth claims. It said that it is impossible, without a trial record that explores historical background, legislative history, and contemporaneous statements of decisionmakers to determine whether the law is neutral and generally applicable, or whether, instead, it targets religious conduct. A trial record is also needed to decide whether the law is narrowly tailored. The suit was brought by a Christian nonprofit organization that engages in “sidewalk counseling” outside abortion clinics.

Prof's Suit Over Display of Prophet Muhammad Paintings Will Move Ahead In Federal Court On Religious Discrimination Claim

In López Prater v. Trustees of Hamline University of Minnesota, (D MN, Sept. 15, 2023), a Minnesota federal district court upheld defendant's removal to federal court of a suit initially filed against it in state court by an Adjunct Art Instructor at Hamline University whose teaching contract was not renewed after she showed slides of two classic paintings of the Prophet Muhammad in her World Art class. (See prior posting.) The court held that because many of plaintiff's allegations involve matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement, her state law claims are pre-empted by §301(a) of the federal Labor-Management Relations Act that creates a federal cause of action for "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce."

The court went on to dismiss several of plaintiff's claims, but refused to dismiss her claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act for religious discrimination, saying in part:

Contrary to Hamline’s position, the Court finds that Ms. López Prater plausibly alleges that Hamline discriminated against her because she was not a Muslim or did not conform to a belief that certain Muslims share....

Ms. López Prater maintains that Hamline would not have labeled the act of showing the images “Islamophobic” if she were Muslim....

... [C]aselaw recognizes that an employer can discriminate against an employee if it acts on the preference of third parties such as customers or clients....  Therefore, Ms. López Prater alleging that Hamline discriminated against her by acting on the preferences of certain Muslim students and staff members is sufficient at this stage.

The court however dismissed plaintiff's reprisal claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, as well as her claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and her claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Volokh Conspiracy also reports on the decision.

8th Circuit Rejects Satanic Temple's Complaint Over Closing Park to Its Display

 In The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota,(8th Cir., Aug. 30, 2023), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court was correct in dismissing free speech, free exercise, equal protection, and RLUIPA claims brought by The Satanic Temple (TST) against the City of Belle Plaine.  As summarized by the court:

In March 2017, the City gave two groups permits [to place monuments in Veterans Memorial Park]: the Belle Plaine Veterans Club and the Satanic Temple. The Veterans Club returned the kneeling soldier statue to the Park in April, but the Satanic Temple’s display wasn’t ready yet. While the Satanic Temple’s display was being built, people objected to it being placed in the Park. In June, the Satanic Temple told the City that its display was ready. The City Council then passed a “Recission Resolution,” closing the Park as a limited public forum, terminating both permits, and instructing the Veterans Club to remove its statue.

The court held:

The City closed the limited public forum to everyone, not just speakers with certain views. The Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged that closing the Park as a limited public forum was unreasonable or viewpoint discriminatory....

...The Satanic Temple has not alleged any facts showing that its religious conduct was targeted for “distinctive treatment.”...

... The Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged that the City’s resolutions burden its religious conduct or philosophy....

The Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged that it and the Veterans Club were similarly situated or that it was treated differently. Nor has it plausibly alleged that the Rescission Resolution was discriminatory on its face or had a discriminatory purpose or impact. The City gave a permit to both groups, had no control over the fact that the Veterans Club placed its statue first, and closed the Park as a limited public forum to everyone. So the Satanic Temple has not plausibly alleged an equal protection claim.

County Did Not Show Compelling Interest in Requiring Amish Plaintiffs to Use Septic Tanks

In Must v. County of Fillmore, (MN App., July 10, 2023), a Minnesota state appellate court in a suit brought under RLUIPA held that the county had not shown that it has a compelling interest in requiring appellants-- 3 members of the Amish community-- to use septic tanks in violation of their religious beliefs. The court said in part:

[T]he district court relied on speculation in making key findings about the harmful content of Amish gray water, the amount of water the Amish use, the number of objecting households, and the amount of Amish gray-water discharge. The district court’s reliance on speculation is precisely what the Supreme Court forbids in Fulton [v. City of Philadelphia]. Thus, we conclude that the record evidence is insufficient to support the district court’s ruling that the septic-tank requirement furthers a compelling state interest specific to these appellants.

In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court had remanded the case for consideration in light of the Fulton decision. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on yesterday's Minnesota court decision.

Minnesota Appeals Court Decides 4 Cases on Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Mandates

Yesterday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals decided four separate appeals from decisions of Unemployment Law Judges who denied unemployment benefits because an applicant refused on religious grounds to comply with an employer's Covid vaccine mandate. Goede v. Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, (MN App., June 12, 2023), was the only one of the four cases published as a precedential decision. The court affirmed the ULJ's denial of benefits even though the state Department of Employment and Economic Development urged its reversal.  The court said in part:

The ULJ found that “Goede does not have a sincerely held religious belief that prevents her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.” The ULJ explained: “Goede’s testimony, when viewed as a whole, shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Goede’s concern is about some vaccines, and that she is declining to take them because she does not trust them, not because of a religious belief.” The ULJ further stated that “[w]hen looking at the totality of the circumstances, Goede’s belief that COVID-19 vaccines are not okay to put in her body is a personal belief not rooted in religion.”

In Daniel v. Honeywell International, Inc., (MN App., June 12, 2023), the appellate court again upheld a denial of benefits, this time to a former employee who refused both the Covid vaccine and refused to comply with the employer's religious accommodation.  The court said in part:

Relator asserts that Honeywell’s COVID-19 policy requiring that he get weekly COVID-19 tests and submit the results “required [him] to defy [his] religious faith.” He asserts that he was upholding his religious faith “by practicing [his] God given right of ‘control over [his] medical’ by not subjecting Jesus Christ’s temple to forcefully coerced medical treatments such as weekly PCR and/or rapid antigen test requirements.”...

The ULJ found that relator lacked credibility because he provided inconsistent testimony and he struggled to explain his religious beliefs.

The court reversed the ULJ's denial of benefits in two other cases. In Benish v. Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, (MN App., June 12, 2023) the court said in part:

The ULJ found that Benish made a “personal choice” to refuse the vaccine, but Benish did not testify to any personal reasons for refusing the vaccine. Instead, he consistently testified that his reason for refusing it was religious. The ULJ also placed improper weight on inconsistencies in Benish’s religious beliefs and on the fact that the Pope had encouraged vaccination in determining that Benish’s beliefs were not sincerely held.... 

... [W]e conclude that the ULJ’s finding—that Benish did not have a sincerely held religious belief that precluded him from getting a COVID-19 vaccine—is unsupported by substantial evidence and must be reversed.

In Millington v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, (MN App., June 12, 2023), the court reversed the ULJ's denial of benefits, saying in part:

Millington clearly and consistently testified regarding her religious reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. Millington’s testimony concerning personal reasons for refusing the vaccine— that she already had COVID-19 and believed she did not need the vaccine and that she had concerns about the safety of the vaccine—are not sufficient to constitute substantial evidence.

In addition, although we generally defer to a ULJ’s credibility findings, the ULJ’s credibility finding in this case was based on at least two erroneous considerations. First, the ULJ erred by relying on the absence of direction from a religious leader to support a finding that Millington did not have a sincerely held religious belief.... Second, the ULJ failed to explain how Millington’s use of over-the-counter medications or alcohol is pertinent to her objection to the COVID-19 vaccine based on its relationship to fetal cell lines. Consequently, the ULJ’s credibility determination is not entitled to the same deference typically owed by an appellate court.

Suit Challenges High School-College Dual Enrollment Plan Exclusion of Some Religious Colleges

Suit was filed yesterday in a Minnesota federal district court challenging a Minnesota statute that excludes certain religious colleges from participating in the state's Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. The program allows students to earn college credits free of charge at public or private colleges while still in high school. An amendment to the PSEO law which will take effect on July 1 bars colleges from participating in the program if the school requires a faith statement from high schoolers or if any part of the admission decision is based on a high schooler's religious beliefs or affiliations.  The complaint (full text) in Loe v. Walz, (D MN, filed 5/24/2023), alleges that the new law variously violates the free exercise, free speech, Establishment Clause and equal protection rights of religious families and religious colleges. The complaint alleges in part:

172. The amendment requires Plaintiffs Crown [College] and [University of] Northwestern to choose between maintaining their religious identities and receiving an otherwise available benefit for which they have been eligible for decades. 

173. It likewise forces the Loe family and the Erickson family to either forgo receipt of an otherwise-available benefit or forgo their right to seek an education in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

AAUP Issues Report on Hamline University Islamic Art Controversy

 The Association of American University Professors Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure has released its report (full text) on the actions of Hamline University in refusing to renew the contract of a part-time art history professor who created a controversy when she presented two historical images of the Prophet Muhammad in an online class session. (See prior posting.) The AAUP Report concluded in part:

Professor Erika López Prater’s decision to display historical images of the Prophet Muhammad in a World Art class was not only justifiable and appropriate on both scholarly and pedagogical grounds; it was also protected by academic freedom. The Hamline administration was wrong to characterize this decision as “undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic.” Similarly, the university’s contention that care for students must “supersede” academic freedom reflected an inaccurate and harmful understanding of the nature of academic freedom in the classroom. The university has since disavowed both claims.

The Star Beacon discusses the report and the University's response to it.

8th Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of Federal Ban on Damaging Religious Real Property

In United States v. Hari, (8th Cir., May 10, 2023), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality under the Commerce Clause of 18 USC §247.  The statute bars damaging religious real property because of the religious character of the property, and bars obstructing a person's enjoyment of free exercise of religion by force or threat of force against them or against religious real property, when the person's conduct affects interstate commerce. The court said in part:

Here, the statute specifically requires that the offense “affects interstate or foreign commerce.” This “ensures, through a case-by-case inquiry, that each defendant’s [offense] affected interstate commerce.”

The court also upheld defendant's conviction under 18 USC § 924(c)(1) for carrying or using a destructive device during and in relation to any crime of violence.  The conduct for which defendant was convicted was described by the court:

In August 2017, Emily Hari loaded a pickup truck with a 20 pound pipe bomb, two assault rifles, and a sledgehammer and drove with two confederates from Illinois to the Dar al-Farooq Islamic Center in Bloomington, Minnesota. The trio smashed a window of the Imam’s office before the parishioners’ dawn prayer and threw gasoline, diesel fuel, and the pipe bomb inside. The bomb detonated. No one was injured; the building suffered fire and smoke damage. Hari and the others fled.

Governors In Minnesota and Washington Sign Bills Protecting Access to Abortion and Gender-Affirming Care

On April 27, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed three bills protecting right to abortion and gender-affirming health care.  A press release from the Governor's Office describes the legislation:

Chapter 28, House File 16 prohibits mental health practitioners or mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to vulnerable adults and clients under age 18. The bill also prohibits fraudulent or deceptive advertising practices relating to conversion therapy.

Chapter 29, House File 146 prevents state courts or officials from complying with child removal requests, extraditions, arrests, or subpoenas related to gender-affirming health care that a person receives in Minnesota....

Chapter 31, House File 366 , the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act, ensures that patients traveling to Minnesota for abortion care, and the providers who serve them, are protected from legal attacks and criminal penalties from other states.

In Washington state, on April 27 Governor Jay Inslee signed five bills protecting access to abortion and gender-affirming services. A press release from the Governor's office describes the legislation:

In anticipation of a Trump-appointed judge’s ruling pulling a common and safe abortion pill from shelves nationally, the governor acted quickly to secure a three-year supply of mifepristone for the state that could be distributed regardless of federal court action.

With the 30,000 doses being held by the state Department of Corrections, all that was left to do was pass a bill that authorized the department to distribute the medication to health providers.... SB 5768 ... does just that....

... Shield Law, HB 1469... prohibits compliance with out-of-state subpoenas related to abortion and gender affirming care services; prevents cooperation with out-of-state investigations; bans extraditions related to abortion and gender affirming care services that occur legally in Washington; and protects providers from harassment for providing these services.....

Inslee also signed a bill to ensure health providers can’t be disciplined for providing legal reproductive health services or gender affirming care in Washington. HB 1340... protects health providers from disciplinary action or having their licenses revoked for “unprofessional conduct” if the care provided follows state law, regardless of where their patient resides.....

HB 1155, the “My Health, My Data” Act, ... will increase privacy protections around collecting, sharing and selling consumer health data. Some popular consumer products can track and share data on individuals’ health — and protections around the use of that data became more necessary with the attack on abortion care in other states....

Patients often face cost-sharing [under their health insurance plans] for receiving abortion care. SB 5242 eliminates cost-sharing for abortions and protects patients from unexpected expenses they may not be able to cover.

Minnesota Appeals Court Decides When Religious Reasons for Vaccine Refusal Were Proven

In three cases decided within days of each other, the Minnesota Court of Appeals wrestled with the question of whether employees' claims of religious objections to the COVID vaccine were credible.  At issue in each case was the former employee's entitlement to unemployment benefits.  If the religious claim was legitimate, vaccine refusal would not constitute disqualifying employment misconduct.

In Washa v. Actalent Scientific, LLC, (MN App, Feb. 22, 2023), the court reversed the decision of an unemployment law judge. It found that substantial evidence did not support the unemployment-law judge's finding that a medical lab technician's refusal was based on safety concerns rather than religious beliefs.  The technician had testified that he did not want to be defiled so that God could enter and he could avoid going to Hell.

In Quarnstrom v. Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, (MN App., Feb. 22, 2023), the court remanded the case, finding that the unemployment-law judge had used the wrong standard in deciding whether an insurance adjustor's refusal was personal rather than religious. The court said in part:

The ULJ reasoned that Quarnstrom’s reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine were not based on sincerely held religious beliefs because she did not cite to particular passages in the Bible, had not been instructed by a religious advisor to refuse the vaccine, and conceded that other members of her congregation could, consistent with their faith, choose to get a vaccine. But “the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect.”...

In McConnell v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, (MN App, Feb. 24, 2023), the court in a 2-1 decision held that the record did not support the unemployment-law judge's conclusion that vaccine refusal by an FRB employee was based on secular, not religious, reasons.  The majority said in part:

Although McConnell testified to concerns regarding the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, she repeatedly tied those concerns back to her faith.... [S]he testified that, although she believes in some medical interventions, she “prayerfully consider[s] things.” The ULJ found McConnell’s testimony regarding safety concerns credible and rejected her testimony regarding her religious beliefs as not credible.... The ULJ offered no reason for crediting only part of McConnell’s testimony, and we can discern none.

Judge Segal dissented, saying in part:

I would conclude that, although it implicates constitutional rights, this appeal, like many others, turns on a credibility determination that is supported by the record. As such, I believe that precedent requires that we defer to the ULJ’s credibility determination.

Minnesota Passes Law Guaranteeing Right To Abortions

The Minnesota legislature yesterday gave final passage to HF1, the Protect Reproductive Options Act (full text). It provides in part:

Every individual who becomes pregnant has a fundamental right to continue the​ pregnancy and give birth, or obtain an abortion, and to make autonomous decisions about​ how to exercise this fundamental right.

According to a CBS News report on the bill:

Abortion rights in Minnesota are already protected because a Doe v. Gomez, a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision. Democrats frame the bill as a "secondary" line of defense to that ruling.

The bill now goes to Gov. Tim Walz for his signature. According to MPR News, Gov. Walz has said he will sign the bill into law. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Street Preacher Gets Injunction Against Ordinance Limiting Microphones

In Miller v. City of Excelsior, Minnesota, (D MN, Aug. 2, 2022), a Minnesota federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a city's ordinance on amplified sound and portions of its special-event permit regulation. Plaintiff wanted to preach on sidewalks in the downtown business area. The city ordinance effectively prevents use of amplification on the narrow sidewalks of downtown. Outside the business district, to use amplification audible more than 30 feet away requires a permit with a $150 per day fee and 30 days advance notice. The court said in part:

By prohibiting all unpermitted amplified sound that can be heard at the property line from where the sound emanates in the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts, it is more likely than not that Section 16-105(b)(3) burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the City’s interests. The ... restriction effectively eliminates amplified sound in the public ways of those districts. In doing so, the ordinance becomes untethered to the City’s legitimate interests in protecting the use and enjoyment of those public areas....

Miller has shown a sufficient likelihood that the City’s 30-day notice requirement, as applied, is not narrowly tailored. Miller is a single speaker, and a 30 day-notice period places a substantial burden on his right to speak spontaneously in his desired public forum....

On this record, it’s more likely than not that a $150 per-day fee is not narrowly tailored to the City’s administrative expenses in hosting Miller’s First Amendment activity.

Minnesota Abortion Restrictions Struck Down Under State Constitution

In Doe v. State of Minnesota, (MN Dist. Ct., July 11, 2022), a Minnesota state trial court judge in a 140-page opinion held that a series of state abortion restrictions violate various provisions in the Minnesota state Constitution. The court summarized its conclusions:

[T]his court concludes that Minnesota abortion laws relating to mandated physician care, hospitalization, criminalization, parental notification, and informed consent are unconstitutional. 

These abortion laws violate the right to privacy because they infringe upon the fundamental right under the Minnesota Constitution to access abortion care and do not withstand strict scrutiny. The parental notification law violates the guarantee of equal protection for the same reasons. The informed consent law also violates the right to free speech under the Minnesota Constitution, because it is misleading and confusing, and does not withstand intermediate scrutiny. Accordingly, this court is declaring those laws unconstitutional and permanently enjoining their enforcement.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Satanic Temple Loses Fight Over City's Revocation Of Display Permit

In The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota, (D MN, Sept. 15, 2021), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed the promissory estoppel claim by The Satanic Temple (TST) growing out of Belle Plaine's rescission of a resolution allowing private groups to place displays in a city park. The city had originally created a limited public forum for private displays honoring veterans, and TST had received a permit to do so. The court said in part:

Here, as addressed, TST received the benefit of Belle Plaine’s alleged promise: TST had a limited-time opportunity, for nearly four months, to display its monument in Veterans Memorial Park. That Belle Plaine terminated TST’s permit early was both authorized by the Enacting Resolution and understood by TST as a possibility when TST applied for a permit. Any contrary expectation held by TST when relying on Belle Plaine’s alleged promise would have been unreasonable. There also is no allegation or evidence that Belle Plaine was unjustly enriched. The only money Belle Plaine received from TST was a $100 permit fee, which Belle Plaine reimbursed to TST. In addition, as addressed, the evidence reflects that TST was not financially harmed and there is no evidence of reputational harm.

The court upheld a magistrate's refusal to allow TST to belatedly amend its complaint to allege free speech, free exercise, equal protection claims and due process claims. Similar claims were previously dismissed. The court also imposed sanctions, in the form of the city's attorney's fees, against TST for maintaining a frivolous lawsuit.