Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Benson was civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in 1993. In 2020, he petitioned for a reduction in custody, which the Special Review Board recommended denying. Benson then sought a rehearing and reconsideration from the Commitment Appeal Panel (CAP). He filed a motion to cross-examine witnesses and participate in his defense, expressing a preference to proceed pro se. The CAP allowed limited cross-examination by Benson but required his appointed counsel to be present and conduct initial questioning. Benson refused to participate under these conditions, leading the CAP to dismiss his petition.Benson appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that the right to counsel under Minnesota Statutes section 253D.20 is waivable. The court of appeals affirmed the CAP's decision, holding that the right to counsel in section 253D.20 is not waivable, based on its precedent. The court also noted that Benson forfeited his constitutional arguments by not raising them at the CAP hearing.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether a civilly committed person can waive the right to counsel under section 253D.20. The court concluded that the right to counsel is waivable, provided the waiver is knowing and intelligent. The court found the statutory language ambiguous but interpreted it in light of legislative intent, common law, and constitutional considerations. The court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case to the CAP to determine if Benson's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. If so, the CAP must allow him to represent himself. View "In re Matter of the Civil Commitment of Benson" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the Re-Enfranchisement Act, which allows individuals convicted of felony-level offenses to vote once they are no longer incarcerated. The plaintiffs, individual taxpayers and the Minnesota Voters Alliance, argued that the Act violates the Minnesota Constitution by restoring only the right to vote rather than all civil rights. They also claimed that using public funds to educate and notify people about the new voting provision is unlawful if the Act itself is unconstitutional.The district court denied the petition, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court determined that taxpayer standing requires a challenge to an illegal expenditure or waste of tax money, which the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate. The court also found that the Minnesota Voters Alliance lacked associational standing because its members did not have standing.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court clarified that taxpayer standing exists only when the central dispute involves alleged unlawful disbursements of public funds. The court held that the plaintiffs could not manufacture standing by pointing to incidental expenditures related to implementing the law. Since the plaintiffs' challenge was primarily against the substantive law itself and not the expenditures, they lacked the necessary standing. Consequently, the Minnesota Voters Alliance also lacked associational standing. The court did not address the merits of the case due to the lack of standing. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Hunt" on Justia Law

Melissa Zielinski was convicted of first-degree intentional murder and second-degree intentional murder under aiding-and-abetting theories. The case arose from the robbery and fatal shooting of Karl Henderson. Zielinski and her brother, Nicholas, planned to rob Henderson, who was known to keep large sums of money in a safe. During the robbery, Nicholas shot Henderson. Evidence included DNA on the stolen safe, phone location data, and witness testimony.The district court denied Zielinski’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained from her cell phone and her statements to police, finding the search warrants valid and the police questioning lawful. Zielinski was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life without parole for first-degree murder. Her postconviction petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the search warrants on particularity grounds, was summarily denied.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that any potential Fourth Amendment violation from police questioning was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Similarly, any Sixth Amendment violation from limiting cross-examination of Nicholas was also deemed harmless. The court agreed that the district court erred in entering convictions for both first-degree and second-degree murder, as the latter is a lesser-included offense of the former. The court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction, reversed the second-degree murder conviction, and remanded to vacate the latter. The court also upheld the denial of Zielinski’s postconviction relief petition, finding no reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different even if the challenged evidence had been excluded. View "State of Minnesota vs. Zielinski" on Justia Law

Kay “KT” Jacobs, a member of the Columbia Heights City Council, was the subject of a recall petition. The petition alleged that Jacobs used a fake name and made derogatory comments about a city council candidate's heritage during a phone call, lied during a city investigation, and was subsequently censured and stripped of her ability to serve on boards and commissions. Jacobs filed a petition to cancel the recall election, arguing that the recall petition did not meet the legal requirements for recall petitions and failed to allege malfeasance or nonfeasance, which are constitutional prerequisites for recalling an elected municipal official.The district court denied Jacobs' petition, finding that the recall petition met the procedural requirements of the city charter and that the allegations constituted malfeasance. Jacobs appealed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court granted her petition for accelerated review.The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision, concluding that the recall petition did not meet the legal definitions of malfeasance or nonfeasance. The court held that Jacobs' conduct, while inappropriate, did not violate a substantive legal standard established by law, rule, or case law, and that she was not acting in her official capacity during the phone call. Therefore, the recall petition failed to allege the necessary grounds for a recall election under the Minnesota Constitution. The court canceled the recall election scheduled for February 13, 2024. View "Jacobs v. City of Columbia Heights" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the petitioner, Ryan Binkley, who sought to have his name included on the Republican Party of Minnesota's ballot for the 2024 presidential nomination primary. However, the Chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota did not include Binkley as a candidate when notifying the Minnesota Secretary of State, Steve Simon, of the candidates for its ballot. Consequently, Binkley and his campaign committee filed a petition with the court, arguing that the procedures established by Minnesota Statutes section 207A.13, subdivision 2(a), which allow a major political party to determine the candidates that will appear on its ballot for the presidential nomination primary, violate the Electors Clause of the United States Constitution.The case was brought before the Minnesota Supreme Court after the petitioners' claim was denied in the lower court. The petitioners argued that the Electors Clause prohibits state-based favoritism on ballots through the exclusion of qualified candidates. The Secretary of State, however, contended that the presidential nomination primary is not subject to the Electors Clause because Minnesota does not use the presidential nomination primary to appoint presidential electors.The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the Secretary of State, ruling that the presidential nomination primary is not part of the process that Minnesota uses to appoint presidential electors. Therefore, the statutes that govern the presidential nomination primary do not fall within the scope of the Electors Clause. The court concluded that the petitioners' claim that section 207A.13, subdivision 2(a) violates the Electors Clause fails as a matter of law. The petition was thus denied. View "J. Binkley for President 2024 vs. Simon" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over two years of Minnesota individual tax returns filed by Christopher and Nancy Wendell, residents of Wisconsin. In 2019 and 2020, the Wendells filed joint tax returns reporting no Minnesota taxable income, despite receiving over $1 million in payments from Minnesota sources. The Wendells claimed that the payments were not taxable wages or ordinary business income. The Commissioner of Revenue disagreed, modified the Wendells’ reported income, assessed additional income tax, and imposed a 25 percent penalty for filing a frivolous tax return. The Wendells appealed the Commissioner’s assessment, and the Minnesota Tax Court granted summary judgment in the Commissioner’s favor.The Minnesota Tax Court found that the Wendells’ tax liability was correctly calculated and adjusted, that no material facts were in dispute, and that the frivolous return penalty statute was constitutional. The Wendells then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the tax court. The court held that the Commissioner of Revenue had the authority to adjust the Wendells’ reported federal adjusted gross income, the tax court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, and the statutory penalty for filing a frivolous return is constitutional. The court rejected the Wendells' arguments that the penalty for filing a frivolous tax return was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses and Excessive Fines Clauses of the United States Constitution and Minnesota Constitution or the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. View "Wendell vs. Commissioner of Revenue" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the legality of the Emergency Management Act (the Act) in Minnesota, which allows the Governor to declare a peacetime emergency in response to a pandemic. The appellants, led by Drake Snell, challenged the Act, arguing that it did not authorize the Governor to declare a peacetime emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and that it violated the nondelegation doctrine.Previously, the district court had dismissed Snell's case, concluding that the Act was a constitutional delegation of power to the Governor. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, stating that the Act granted the Governor the authority to declare a peacetime emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court of appeals declined to consider Snell's argument that the Act violated the nondelegation doctrine, holding that it was not within the scope of remand.The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. The court concluded that the Act does authorize a governor to declare a peacetime emergency in response to a public health crisis such as a pandemic. Furthermore, the court found that Governor Walz was authorized under the Act to declare a peacetime emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lastly, the court rejected Snell's contention that the Act violates the nondelegation doctrine, stating that the Act does not represent an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. The court noted that the Act places durational limits on the powers and subjects them to termination by the Legislature, thus providing a check on the Governor's powers. View "Procaccini vs. Walz" on Justia Law

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the Legal Marijuana Now Party (LMNP) does not meet the requirements to be classified as a major political party under Minnesota law. The case was initiated by Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, who filed a petition arguing that the LMNP failed to comply with certain requirements for major political parties. Specifically, Martin claimed that the LMNP did not maintain a state central committee subject to the state convention’s control, as required by Minnesota law.The case was referred to a referee, who concluded that the LMNP had indeed failed to meet the requirements to be a major political party. The LMNP objected to these findings and argued that the relevant statutes unconstitutionally infringed upon its First Amendment associational rights.The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the LMNP's arguments. It found that the LMNP's single committee, The Head Council, was not subject to the control of the LMNP’s state convention, as required by law. The court also rejected the LMNP’s constitutional challenge, finding that the party failed to demonstrate how the statutory requirements specifically burdened its associational rights. As a result, the court held that the LMNP does not meet all the statutory requirements to maintain its status as a major political party for the upcoming state primary and general elections. View "Martin vs. Simon" on Justia Law

The case involves Anthony James Trifiletti, who was convicted of second-degree unintentional felony murder. The conviction followed a second trial after the first ended in a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury. During the second trial, one of the State’s witnesses was exposed to COVID-19 and was deemed unavailable to testify in person. The district court allowed the transcript of her testimony from the first trial to be read into the record instead of live testimony. Trifiletti appealed, arguing that this violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6, of the Minnesota Constitution.The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the district court erred in determining that the witness was unavailable under the Confrontation Clause. The court found that the State failed to establish that the witness would not have been available to testify in person at some reasonable point in time during the trial. The court also rejected the State's argument that Trifiletti invited the error by choosing to have the witness's prior testimony read aloud for the jury rather than having her testify via video. However, the court concluded that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the jury's determination that Trifiletti did not act in self-defense was surely unattributable to the witness's testimony. Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the court of appeals. View "State of Minnesota vs. Trifiletti" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the 1986 murder of Nancy Daugherty. The defendant, Michael Allan Carbo Jr., was charged with two counts of first-degree murder. The prosecution's case was based on DNA evidence collected from the crime scene and Carbo's garbage, which matched Carbo's DNA. Carbo sought to suppress this evidence, arguing that the collection and analysis of his DNA violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He also sought to introduce evidence suggesting that another individual, B.E., was the actual perpetrator.The district court denied Carbo's motion to suppress the DNA evidence, ruling that Carbo had abandoned his expectation of privacy by leaving his semen at the crime scene and his garbage in a communal bin. The court also denied Carbo's motion to introduce alternative-perpetrator evidence, concluding that the proffered evidence did not have an inherent tendency to connect B.E. to the crime.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision regarding the DNA evidence. It held that Carbo had indeed abandoned his subjective expectation of privacy in the genetic information gathered from the crime scene and his garbage. However, the court reversed the lower court's decision on the alternative-perpetrator evidence. It found that the district court had abused its discretion by holding Carbo's evidentiary proffer to an unobtainable legal standard, thereby violating his constitutional right to present a complete defense. The court concluded that the error was not harmless and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State of Minnesota vs. Carbo" on Justia Law