Telescope Media Group v. Lucero, No. 17-3352 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs own and operate Telescope Media Group, a company that makes commercials, short films, and live-event productions. Plaintiffs filed suit against Minnesota, seeking injunctive relief preventing Minnesota from enforcing two provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), requiring plaintiffs to produce both opposite sex and same sex videos, or none at all. The district court denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint.
Determining that plaintiffs had standing, the Eighth Circuit reversed and held that wedding videos are speech and plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to make them for only opposite sex weddings; plaintiffs, like the creators of other types of films, will exercise substantial editorial control and judgment when making the wedding videos; and Minnesota's interpretation of the MHRA interferes with plaintiffs' speech by compelling them to speak favorably about same sex marriage if they choose to speak favorably about opposite sex marriage, and it operates as a content-based regulation of their speech. Applying strict scrutiny, rather than intermediate scrutiny, the court held that Minnesota seeks to regulate speech itself as a public accommodation and has violated the First Amendment by doing so. Finally, plaintiffs may pursue their free-exercise claim on remand.
Court Description: Stras, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Civil Rights Carl and Angel Larsen and their wedding video business, Telescope Media Group, sought injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the Minnesota Human Rights Act against them, claiming their constitutional rights were violated by requiring them to make same-sex wedding videos. The district court dismissed the action and denied a preliminary injunction. The Larsens alleged a credible threat of enforcement and thus have standing. The wedding videos are a form of speech entitled to First Amendment protection, as they involve editorial judgment and control by the makers, and constituted a media for the communication of ideas. Because the MHRA compels the Larsens to speak favorably of same-sex marriage if they speak favorably of opposite-sex marriage and operates as a content-based regulation of speech it is subject to strict scrutiny. Antidiscrimination law serves important government interest, but it may not compel speech to serve as a public accommodation for others. Application of the intermediate scrutiny is rejected, as law compels speech not conduct. District court's dismissal of other constitutional theories are affirmed (association-freedom claim, Equal Protection Clause vagueness argument, and unconstitutional conditions doctrine), except the free-exercise claim, as the law is intertwined with the free-speech claim; it burdens religiously motivated speech not religious conduct and constitutes a hybrid-rights claim that may be developed on remand. On remand, the district court must consider preliminary injunction in the first instance. Judge Kelly concurs in part and dissents in part.
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.