Bernard Eggenberger v. West Albany Township
820 F.3d 938
8th Cir.2016Background
- Bernard Eggenberger, a West Albany Township resident and political activist, attended meetings, reviewed township documents, published criticisms, reported an alleged illegal land transfer, and filed at least one lawsuit (later dismissed as frivolous).
- Eggenberger alleges the Township and its clerk, John E. Moechnig, selectively denied him access to and photocopying of documents that the Township otherwise permits the public to view.
- The Township objected to a subpoena Eggenberger sought while litigating as a private attorney general and discussed (but never sought) a restraining order against him.
- Eggenberger sued in Minnesota state court alleging violations of the Minnesota Constitution and the U.S. First Amendment (including retaliation); the case was removed to federal court.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing all claims; Eggenberger appealed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private cause of action under Minnesota Constitution | Eggenberger: Minnesota Constitution rights (speech, association, petition) were violated by denial of document access; he can sue directly. | Township: Minnesota Constitution has no private cause of action; UDJA/declaratory relief argument fails. | No private right; claims dismissed. |
| UDJA / Article I §8 common-law remedy | Eggenberger: UDJA and Remedies Clause permit declaratory relief because access to gov't information is a vested common-law right. | Township: Article I §8 protects only vested common-law rights; no such right exists here and Township did not create one by permissive access. | No vested common-law right shown; UDJA relief unavailable. |
| First Amendment right of access to government information | Eggenberger: Township generally allows public access but targeted him; thus First Amendment right violated. | Township: No constitutional right to access government information beyond what is open generally. | No First Amendment right to the specific access claimed; claim dismissed. |
| First Amendment retaliation (two theories) | Eggenberger: (1) Denial of documents chilled his reporting; (2) Township retaliated for his subpoena/lawsuit by discussing a restraining order rather than complying. | Township: (1) Denying access to non-constitutional right cannot chill protected speech; (2) his lawsuit was frivolous/bad-faith, so not protected petitioning. | Retaliation claims fail: no chilling of protected right, and litigation was not protected activity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978) (no First Amendment right to access all government information)
- Rice v. Kempker, 374 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2004) (no constitutional right to information beyond what is generally open)
- Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731 (1983) (baseless litigation not protected by First Amendment petition)
- McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) (limits on petition clause protections for certain abusive litigation)
- Scheffler v. Molin, 743 F.3d 619 (8th Cir. 2014) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim and objective chilling test)
- Hoeft v. Hennepin Cty., 754 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (Article I §8 preserves only vested common-law rights; not an independent source of rights)