Gresham v. Swanson, No. 16-3219 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Minn. Stat. 325E.27(a), which restricts the use of robocalls. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion, holding that plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment claim. The court held that Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541 (8th Cir. 1995), was controlling in this case. Van Bergen concluded that the first three exceptions in subsection (b) were not content-based restrictions, but were valid time, place, and manner restrictions. The court also held that the content-based exception for tax-exempt charitable organizations, which was added to the statute in 2009, was severable from the rest of the statute.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Kelly, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Constitutional law. In action challenging the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. Section 325E.27 restricting the use of robocalls, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute as it was unlikely plaintiff would succeed on the merits of his claims; the district court did not err in determining, based on this court's decision in Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541 (8th Cir. 1995), that the restrictions contained in section (b) of the statute are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions; nor did the court err in finding that a 2009 content-based amendment creating an exception for tax-exempt charitable organizations was severable; Citizens United and other recent Supreme Court cases do not supersede Van Bergen and it controls this case.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.