The Minnesota Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Wednesday over a whopping 1,400-page law passed in 2024 that another judge ruled violated the single-subject clause in the state Constitution.
Depending on how the case shakes out, a gun law at the center of the legal challenge could be scrapped and the entire law could go with it. The courts have generally been reluctant, however, to strike down more than they have to when resolving a dispute.
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus challenged the measure months after it was enacted. The group argued that the law spans more topics than the title dealing with state government operations and finances. In August, a Ramsey County District Court judge invalidated a provision banning binary triggers – tools used to fire a bullet on the pull of a trigger and another on the release.
The state appealed, arguing the law was passed appropriately and that the caucus didn’t press its case in a timely manner. In court, Assistant Attorney General Emily Anderson argued that Judge Leonardo Castro had already severed the provision dealing with binary triggers from the law. She said the appeals court shouldn’t go beyond that in striking the full 1,400-page policy.
“The gun owners are asking this court for more than just to win. They are asking for a sweeping remedy that is basically unprecedented in Minnesota's history of single-subject challenges,” Anderson said.
A ruling is due within 90 days — after this session ends if the court sits on a decision — and could have significant implications for how lawmakers do their work. Vast omnibus bills that pile several proposals into one package have become commonplace at the Capitol. Several additional changes to the 2024 omnibus law have been filed since Castro issued his ruling.
Nicholas Nelson, an attorney with the Upper Midwest Law Center, argued on behalf of the Gun Owners Caucus that the court should wipe out the law to send a message that the Legislature must curtail its use of sprawling bills.
“I think it would be healthy for our state, for the judiciary and honestly, for the Legislature, for there to be a clean, full invalidation remedy here. The alternative is not everyone goes about our business as usual,” Nelson said. “Are we going to leave this structural incentive in place for the Legislature to think, ‘Oh, we can commit constitutional violations that are too big to fail?’”
The three judges on the appellate panel lobbed questions at attorneys about whether breaking off just one provision would invite dozens of lawsuits on other pieces of the law.
“Doesn't it basically encourage many, many people and organizations to file these challenges?” Judge Matthew Johnson asked Anderson. “It seems to me that if we have, if we have an act that's so broad, affecting so many people, then we might have hundreds of people coming to Ramsey County District Court and then litigating this individually, piece by piece.”
Anderson said there could be more challenges to the law but said that was the proper course, rather than having the court wipe it out in its entirety.
“It could involve multiple challenges. Full candor, the state is now facing multiple challenges to the 2024 omnibus bill. But that is how litigation works,” Anderson said, “we don't throw justiciability out of the window just because we're talking about single subject violations.”
Judges also raised concerns about whether the gun owners caucus had standing to call for the roll back of the full policy. They pressed Nelson about whether there were comparable cases of Minnesota courts striking bills in their entirety due to single-subject concerns.
“Should the gun owners be able to obtain relief in the form of striking those provisions when they didn't have standing to challenge them in the first place? That's what is concerning me about the idea of striking down the whole bill, not being the Supreme Court, a court that could elect to do that,” Judge Michelle Larkin asked.
Nelson said the gun owners should be permitted to call for the full repeal.
“We think the Supreme Court has said, ‘Striking the whole bill is proper,’” he said. “If that's true, then that kind of, you know, by implication, answers this standing concern.”
Nelson is also involved with a separate challenge filed just this week. That lawsuit seeks to undo provisions in the law that deal with expansions of Minnesota’s earned sick and safe time and paid family and medical leave programs. Small business groups say they have caused burdens and should be struck since 2024 law spans subjects beyond state government operations and finances.