281 Care Committee v. Arneson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8673
| 8th Cir. | 2011

Background

  • Plaintiffs are three Minnesota grassroots groups opposing school-funding ballot initiatives and their leaders.
  • Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices Act § 211B.06 makes knowingly false statements about ballot questions a crime; enforcement historically via criminal prosecution, later shifted to civil OAH proceedings.
  • 2006: BU.I.L.D. Citizen Committee filed an OAH complaint against W.I.S.E. and Niska; OAH initially found prima facie violation but panel dismissed the complaint.
  • 2007–2008: Plaintiffs campaigned against a Robbinsdale ballot initiative; district superintendent warned of potential false information, prompting fear of enforcement.
  • Plaintiffs allege chilling effect from § 211B.06 and sue in federal court seeking to invalidate the statute as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
  • District court dismissed for lack of standing/ripe claim and denied summary judgment; plaintiffs appeal, and the Eighth Circuit reverses and remands.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge § 211B.06 Plaintiffs suffered or are threatened with injury from chilling effect. No actual or imminent injury in fact, or redressability is unlikely. Plaintiffs have standing; credible threat of prosecution and past enforcement support injury in fact.
Whether the claim is ripe for review Injury is concrete and ongoing due to the statute's existence and enforcement threat. Ripeness not satisfied because enforcement is uncertain. Claim is ripe; injury is not speculative and will recur with ballot initiatives.
Whether Ex Parte Young permits suits against the Attorney General AG Swanson shares enforcement connections with § 211B.06 and should be liable. AG has limited role; not automatically a proper defendant. Ex Parte Young exception applies; Swanson is a proper defendant due to threefold enforcement connection.
Whether § 211B.06 is subject to strict scrutiny or narrowly tailored Knowingly false political speech about ballot initiatives is protected; statute fails strict scrutiny. Statute falls outside First Amendment protection and is not viewpoint-neutral. Content-based restriction on political speech requires strict scrutiny; the district court erred by not applying it.
Whether the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim or remanded for further proceedings Statute is unconstitutional on its face under First Amendment standards. Statute may be constitutional; needs strict scrutiny analysis. Remand to address whether § 211B.06 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.

Key Cases Cited

  • Republican Party of Minn. v. Klobuchar, 381 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2004) (standing and justiciability framework; Article III case-or-controversy)
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court 1992) (three elements of standing)
  • St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Gaertner, 439 F.3d 481 (8th Cir. 2006) (standing; credible chill in First Amendment challenge)
  • Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1979) (objective chill; injury in fact from intended law enforcement)
  • Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (Supreme Court 1961) (pre-enforcement challenges; desuetude as a factor)
  • Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat, 317 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2003) (pre-enforcement standing for federal challenges to criminal law)
  • United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union v. IBP, Inc., 857 F.2d 422 (8th Cir. 1988) (standing and redressability in enforcement contexts)
  • Zanders v. Swanson, 573 F.3d 591 (8th Cir. 2009) (standing where plaintiff did not allege intent to violate statute)
  • United States v. Alvarez, 617 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejects categorical exclusion of knowingly false speech from First Amendment protection)
  • Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (Supreme Court 1982) (false statements in elections; robust political debate context)
  • McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (Supreme Court 1995) (anonymous pamphleteering; First Amendment protection of political speech)
  • Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (Supreme Court 1964) (defamatory false statements; government cannot police truth in political speech)
  • Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (Supreme Court 1966) (protection of political speech as core First Amendment value)
  • Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (Supreme Court 2010) (strong protection for political speech; limits on governmental control)
Read the full case