Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Joe Mansky, No. 15-1741 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Riley, Chief Judge, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Election laws. Judges Loken and Benton issue this decision pursuant to 8th Cir. R. 47E. For the court's prior opinions in the matter, see Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 708 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2013) and Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 849 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2017). On remand from the Supreme Court. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 138 S.Ct. 1876 (2018). In light of the Supreme Court' decision that the Minnesota statute in question violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, this court reverses the grant of summary judgment for the defendants and remands the matter for further proceedings.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 28, 2017.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1682 ___________________________ Minnesota Majority lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff Minnesota Voters Alliance; Minnesota Northstar Tea Party Patriots; Election Integrity Watch; Susan Jeffers, individually and as an election judge; Dan McGrath; Andy Cilek lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants v. Joe Mansky, in his official capacity as the Elections Manager for Ramsey County; Virginia Gelms, in her individual and official capacity as the Elections Manager for Hennepin County; Mike Freeman, in his official capacity as Hennepin County Attorney; John Choi, in his official capacity as Ramsey County Attorney; Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Secretary of State lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ___________________________ No. 15-1741 ___________________________ Minnesota Majority lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff Minnesota Voters Alliance; Minnesota Northstar Tea Party Patriots; Election Integrity Watch; Susan Jeffers, individually and as an election judge; Dan McGrath; Andy Cilek lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees v. Joe Mansky, in his official capacity as the Elections Manager for Ramsey County; Virginia Gelms, in her individual and official capacity as the Elections Manager for Hennepin County; Mike Freeman, in his official capacity as Hennepin County Attorney; John Choi, in his official capacity as Ramsey County Attorney lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Secretary of State lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: July 18, 2018 Filed: August 3, 2018 [Published] ____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and BENTON, Circuit Judges.1 ____________ PER CURIAM. This case is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 138 S. Ct. 1876 (2018). In 2010, several organizations and individuals sued the Minnesota Secretary of State and Ramsey and Hennepin county election officials, attacking a statute prohibiting the wearing of 1 The Honorable William Jay Riley, then Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, now retired, took no part in this decision. This opinion is filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E. -2- political insignia inside a polling place. This court reversed dismissal of the defendants’ as-applied First Amendment claim. Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 708 F.3d 1051, 1059 (8th Cir. 2013). On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. This court affirmed, holding that the statute, as applied, did not violate the First Amendment. Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 849 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the statute violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Mansky, 138 S. Ct. at 1891-92. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mansky, this court reverses the grant of summary judgment for the defendants. ******* The case is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. _______________ -3-