Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Petitioners' petition filed under Minn. Stat. 204B.44(a) asking that the Supreme Court direct the Minnesota Secretary of State to include Roque De La Fuente's name as a candidate for The Republican Party of Minnesota's nomination for United States President on the ballot for the Minnesota presidential nomination primary election on March 3, 2020, holding that Petitioners' claims failed.Petitioners argued that the procedure established by Minn. Stat. 207A.13, which allows a major political party to determine which candidates' names will be on the ballot for a statewide presidential nomination primary, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that section 207A.13 does not violate (1) the prohibition against special privileges because the Legislature had a rational basis for classifying political parties based on a party's participation in a national convention to nominate the party's presidential candidate; (2) the Presidential Eligibility Clause because requiring a political party to identify the candidates for the ballot to be used in a presidential nomination primary is not a condition of eligibility to serve as President of the United States; and (3) Petitioners' rights of free association because any burden imposed on those rights by the ballot preparation procedures is outweighed by the associational rights of political parties and the State's regulatory interests. View "De La Fuente v. Simon" on Justia Law

In this challenge to a zoning ordinance prohibiting industrial mineral operations within Winona County the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the district granting summary judgment to the County on all of Minnesota Sands, LLC's claims, holding that the ordinance was constitutional.Minnesota Sands, a mining company, sought to mine and process silica sand in the County. Minnesota Sands sued the County requesting declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The district court granted summary judgment to the County. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the ordinance did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or work an unconstitutional taking of Minnesota Sands' property interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Minnesota Sands had standing to bring this case; (2) the County's ordinance did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause on its face, in purpose or in effect; and (3) Minnesota Sands' takings claims failed because the property interests it claimed were taken by the County had not yet accrued. View "Minnesota Sands, LLC v. County of Winona, Minnesota" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals holding that a proposed charter amendment was not manifestly unconstitutional but was an improper referendum, holding that the proposed amendment was not an improper exercise of the charter amendment power and was not manifestly unconstitutional.After the City of Bloomington changed from a system of open trash collection to a system of organized collection a group of residents attempted, through an amendment to the City Charter, to require that voters pre-approve a change in the method of trash collection. The City refused to put the proposed charter amendment on the ballot. In the original appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of appeals for decision on whether the proposed amendment would violate the Contract Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions and whether it was an attempt to exercise the voter referendum power through an improper means. On remand, the court of appeals concluded that the proposed amendment was an improper referendum but was not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the proposed charter amendment was not an improper referendum and did not violate the Contract Clauses. View "Jennissen v. City of Bloomington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief, holding that the alleged facts, even when viewed in a light most favorable to Appellant, conclusively showed that he was entitled to no relief.Appellant was convicted of murder and attempted murder. Appellant later filed his postconviction petition alleging that several reversible errors were committed by the judge, prosecutor, and his counsel during his jury trial. The district court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing and without addressing the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's claims were procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976); and (2) the failure to address the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim did not require a remand because the facts alleged conclusively showed that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claim. View "Zumberge v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for first-degree driving while impaired, holding that Officer Patrick Bendel of the Red Lake Police Department was acting within his proper authority when he detained Defendant and transported him to Beltrami County law enforcement.On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that all evidence obtained as a result of his arrest should be suppressed because Officer Bendel was not a "peace officer" as defined in Minn. Stat. 169A.03, subd. 18 and therefore could not legally arrest Defendant for driving while impaired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Officer Bendel detained and investigated Defendant and ejected him from the Red Lake Reservation pursuant to the tribal authority to detain and remove recognized by federal courts; and (2) therefore, Defendant's detention was lawful. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief, holding that the claims raised in the petition were procedurally barred and that the district court's failure to address Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel did not require a remand.Defendant was convicted of murder and attempted murder. Defendant later filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging that counsel, the judge, and the prosecutor committed reversible errors during trial. In a supporting memorandum, Defendant alleged an additional claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied the petition without a hearing and failed to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's claims were barred by State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976); and (2) the facts conclusively showed that Defendant was entitled to no relief on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Zumberge v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, holding that Defendant's claim failed on the merits.In his petition for postconviction relief Defendant argued that his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder must be set aside based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court summarily dismissed Defendant's postconviction petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Defendant was entitled to no relief on his postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. View "Petersen v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the officer formed a reasonable, articulable suspicion to make the traffic stop that led to Defendant's arrest.The officer informed Defendant that he had been stopped because the car's windshield was cracked and because it did not appear that Defendant had been wearing his seat belt. Defendant was subsequently charged with driving while impaired and violating his driver's license restriction. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop, alleging that the stop was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the officer was not justified in stopping Defendant for the crack in his windshield but that the evidence supported a conclusion that the officer had reasonable suspicion that Defendant was not wearing his seat belt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even if the officer's observation that Defendant was not wearing his seat belt was mistaken, the mistake was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. View "State v. Poehler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree felony murder, first-degree aggravated robbery, and possession of a firearm by an ineligible person related to a fatal shooting, holding that the district court did not clearly err by overruling Defendant's Batson objection to the State's peremptory challenge of a prospective juror.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in overruling his Batson objection to the State's peremptory challenge of the juror because the State's challenge was racially motivated and the proffered explanation for exercising the challenge was pretextual. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the race-neutral reason for striking the juror was not a pretext for racial discrimination. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court's decision denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief asserting the invalidity of a test-refusal conviction under Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), and Johnson v. State, 916 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. 2018), holding that the district court properly placed the burden of proof on Defendant instead of the State.Birchfield announced the rule that, in the absence of a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, refusal to submit to a blood or urine test cannot be criminalized. Johnson made the rule retroactive. The district court denied Defendant's request for postconviction relief, concluding that he failed to prove there was no applicable exception to the warrant requirement. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the district court erred by placing the burden of proof on Defendant instead of the State. The Supreme Court reversed and announced a heightened pleading standard for Birchfield/Johnson postconviction proceedings, holding that the district court properly placed the burden of proof on Defendant. View "Fagin v. State" on Justia Law