Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson

Luis; Mihalchick; Barbara Steve Conclusion Sheehy, Neilson; Kathleen Adminis above, set forth we For the reasons Judges trative Law Minnesota of the court. judgment district affirm the Hearings, Administrative Office of capacities; their Michael official Affirmed County Freeman, Hennepin Attorney, capacity, in his Defendants- official Appellees. Center;

Campaign Legal Democracy 21; Justice, and The Brennan Center Law, Amici on Behalf NYU School of Appellee. No. 10-3126. CITIZENS CONCERNED MINNESOTA Appeals, United States Court LIFE, INC.; Taxpayers The FOR Eighth Circuit. Minnesota; League of Coastal Travel 11, 2011. Submitted: Jan. LLC, Enterprises, Plaintiffs-Appel- 16, 2011. May Filed: lants, Granted, En Rehearing Opinion Banc v. July Vacated SWANSON, Attorney Lori

General, capacity; in her official Bob

Milbert; Scanlon; John Terri Ash

more; Bettermann; Hilda Felicia

Boyd; Greg McCullough, Minnesota

Campaign Finance and Public Disclo Members, in

sure Board their official Raymond

capacities; Krause, Chief Judge

Administrative Law

Minnesota Office of Administrative

Hearings, capacity; in his official Lipman,

Eric Assistant Chief Admin Judge Law

istrative Hearings, Administrative

Office of capacity;

his official Manuel Cer

vantes; Beverly Heydinger; Richard appeal, cutting] 7. On Mr. Norris claims that we can- the search warrant.” R.40 at 117. judgment the district court’s The affirm based district court did not believe it had to analyze the reasonable manner which the war- encounter with the officers' Mr. Nor rant was executed because the court ris as district an execution of search warrant be Ohio, finding Terry justified made a factual that the cause it under warrant never also was Reply (citing Br. 8 was executed. See R.40 at 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). alternative, 117). disagree legal We district court That there is actions, however, findings justification any made factual that restrict our for the officers' finding, negate affirmance on this basis. district court is not factual nor does it police possibility may determined that arrived on the that the actions officers’ purpose” justified legal grounds. the "actual "exe- scene with number of Jr., Haute, Bopp, argued,

James Terre IN, Coleson, LaRue, E. Joseph Richard E. Haute, Kaylan IN, L. Phillips, Terre Magnuson, Minneapolis, and James R. MN, brief, appellants. on the for Gilbert, Paul, MN, argued, Alan St. Mi- Freeman, chael O. Daniel P. Rogan, Sr. County Attorney, Assistant Jean Burdof Stack, County and Beth Assistant Attor- MN, Gilbert, neys, Minneapolis, Alan So- General, Garry Kristyn licitor John S. Anderson, AAG, Paul, MN, St. on the brief, appellees. Youn, Ladov, Mark

Monica and Mimi Marziana, York, NY, New amici curiae for The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU of Law. School Hebert, Malloy, J. Gerald Tara and Paul DC, Ryan, Washington, S. amici curiae for Legal Campaign Center. Wertheimer, Donald J. Simon and Fred DC, Washington, amici curiae for Democ- racy 21. RILEY, BYE Judge,

Before Chief MELLOY; Judges. Circuit MELLOY, Judge. Circuit Life, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Inc., Minnesota, Taxpayers League The (col- LLC, Enterprises, Travel Coastal Citizens”) lectively “Minnesota are Minne- corporations challenging pro- sota several visions of election Minnesota’s Specifically, laws. Minnesota Citizens (1) seeks to invalidate Minnesota’s ban on entities, parties, other like making direct contributions corporations conjunction with candidates. parties and work candidates and regulation of how 917. may independent expenditures, make por- response, In Minnesota amended section. Minnesota defined the next laws. Minnesota re- tions of its election challenge response brings this longstanding prohibition tained a on direct decision in Court’s recent to candidates and corporate contributions v. Federal Election Com- Citizens United 211B.15, affiliated entities. Minn.Stat. — mission, U.S.-, 876, 175 most, according subdiv. 2. At to Minneso- (2010). At L.Ed.2d 753 the outset Citizens, permits corpora- ta below, Minnesota proceeding conduit funds to which tions to establish injunction. preliminary for a moved may others contribute. See id. subdiv. motion, and district court1 denied the contrast, regula- In Minnesota amended appeals this denial. Minnesota Citizens corporate independent expendi- tions affirm. We created two means which tures and corporations expendi- could make such I. Id., 3; § tures. subdiv. Minn.Stat. 10A. provides part The First Amendment in 12, la. Minnesota first defined an subdiv. ... “Congress that shall make no law independent expenditure as: speech.” Inter- abridging the freedom advocating the expenditure expressly an provision, Supreme preting this Court clearly election or defeat of a identified in prior prec- Citizens United overruled its candidate, expenditure if the is made government may edent and held that the consent, express implied without the or making ban inde- not authorization, of, not cooperation or is, pendent expenditures, “political request at the or concert with or speech presented to the electorate that is of, suggestion any any candidate or can- candidate,” not coordinated with a advocat- committee principal campaign didate’s the election or defeat of a candidate. ing agent. or Supreme at 913. The 10A.01, § Minn Stat. subdiv. 18. Minneso- government may further held that the wishing to required corporations ta then corporations wishing force to make inde- expenditures make such to either “form[] speak through pendent register[ independent expenditure an] fund[s],” “separate segregated known as political expenditure if is in ex- fund (“PACs”), action political committees existing [contribute an] cess $100 “separate least where the PACs are associ- independent expenditure political commit- corporation” from the and where ation[s] 10A.12, § political tee or fund.” Id. sub- subject to “burdensome” PACs la; 211B.15, § div. see also Minn.Stat. regulations. Id. at 897. The subdiv. 3. Court, however, a upheld federal disclaim- law at If a a corporation er and disclosure issue and did chooses establish fund, precedent and its expressly prior political corporation overrule its al- then the lowing subject to a series of prohibit political direct fund are statutory requirements. to candidates and Under the re- Frank, 1. The Honorable Donovan W. United sota. Judge States District District of Minne- law, noncampaign ation to whom disburse- corporation must

vised political aggregate for the ments have been made that a treasurer appoint first fund, register must then purpose the treasurer excess of and the of each $100 days by filling disbursement; out within fourteen noncampaign the fund the sum of among other disclosing, disbursements; form two-page a noncampaign all and the deposi- all of the fund’s things, listing a nonprofit corpo- name and address of a and addresses of the the names tories and administrative assis- provides ration treasurer, treasur- fund, any deputy politi- committee or political tance to the 10A.14, 10A.12, Id. §§ subdiv. sub- ers. § cal fund. MinmStat. 10A.20. fund must also political 2. The divs. Moreover, political the treasurer for a fund funds from other funds. segregate its keep must certain records and make them 10A.12, If a Id. corporation § subdiv. 2. audit. Id. § 10A.13. Fi- available for fund, corporation to its a the sole donor dissolve, nally, if a fund wants to funds with an internal book- segregate can debts, dispose then must settle its device, spreadsheet. as a keeping such assets, a remaining and file termination established, fund must Once Id. § report. 10A.24. One method reports. periodic, file detailed As further dispose can which fund of its explained: court the district by returning assets is contributions to reports during file five The fund must 211B.12; 10A.01, their sources. year report and one general-election 26(2). subdiv. non-general-election year. during If, hand, on the other report § 10A.20. The must Minn.Stat. existing politi- to to an chooses contribute liquid assets at disclose the amount fund, corporation subject cal then the is to beginning reporting period; of a the A statutory requirements. for-prof- fewer of each individual or name and address corporation only provide it need its name whose contributions within association and address for contributions made from $100; amount and year exceed general treasury. non-profit corpo- A contributions; the sum of date of such ration, contrast, also need to by would peri- during reporting regarding the under- disclose information od; that each loan made or received if lying source of the contribution the cor- $100; the name and address of exceeds $5,000 more than to a poration contributed lender; during receipts over $100 Similarly, political fund or committee. reporting period not otherwise list- corporation that solicits and receives con- ed; receipts; the sum of those the name political for a fund must disclose tributions or and address of each individual associ- the source of the contributions. entity made reporting ation to whom the case, appellants In this are three Minne- year expenditures exceeding within the corporations seeking to advance their sota $100; expenditures the sum of all made commercial interests. respective social and entity during the re- reporting for Life is a Minnesota Citizens Concerned the name and address of porting period; seeking to “secure non-profit corporation committee, fund, political each human life from protections for innocent committee, principal campaign party or through ef- conception until natural death unit in excess of to which contributions education, made; legislation, fective were the sum of all contri- $100 Minne- Taxpayer League The butions; any action.” the amount and nature of incurred; non-profit corporation advocating sota is advance of credit the name taxes, government, and for “lower limited and address of each individual or associ- natively empowerment taxpaying prior Supreme Ml citizens.” asserts that LLC, precedent, properly interpreted, when al- Finally, Enterprises, Coastal Travel lows the to limit direct contri- for-profit, limited-liability corporation is a butions to candidates and affiliated entities provides industry “retail ser- travel only when corporations have another vices.” Each for a corporation pur- exists speaking, means of which Minnesota Citi- pose nominating electing other than zens does not have because Minnesota candidates, specific but each functionally all banned forms of direct cor- to independent expenditures wishes make Moreover, porate contributions. Minneso- directly and to contribute to candidates ta Citizens claims that disput- political parties.2 filed companies ed election properly tailored enjoin to suit Minnesota elections laws on in light constitutionally heightened independent expenditures scrutiny. Finally, level of Minnesota Citi- contributions to candidates and argues zens that it satisfied the remaining parties preliminary and moved for a in- requirements issuing injunction. junction. The district court denied the disagree We and address each of Minneso- enjoin primarily motion because the cor- arguments ta Citizens’s in turn. porations failed to show a “likelihood of appeal success.” This followed. evaluating When whether to is preliminary injunction, sue a a court

II. (1) should prob consider four factors: argues Minnesota Citizens that the dis- ability that the movant will succeed on the (2) trict court erred in failing grant pre- merits; irreparable threat of harm liminary injunction. According (3) movant; Minne- the state of balance Citizens, sota likely prevail on the between this harm injury and the respect merits with corpo- the issue of granting injunction will inflict on other independent expenditures rate parties; because public interest. Data regulates Inc., such phase Sys., Inc. Sys., v. C L (8th 109, Cir.1981). a manner prohibits. Citizens United 114 party A seeking Minnesota Citizens challenge maintains that Minne- to the validity duly of a enacted effectively sota retained its ban on corpo- state statute rigorous must meet a more independent expenditures by success, rate requir- however, standard of and show ing corporations separate to use “likely prevail entities— that it is to on the merits” e., political 1. speak by funds—to im- because of the deference owed to laws posing regulations “burdensome” on politi- which are the product of the democratic cal funds similar Minn., to those that process. the Su- Planned Parenthood N.D., preme Court found to Rounds, constitute a de facto S.D. v. 733 (8th in Cir.2008). ban Citizens Nevertheless, United. Minnesota Citi- as to the argues zens also that it likely prevail issue, is to specific merits of a “the burdens at on the issue of direct corporate contribu- preliminary injunction stage track the tions because Citizens broadly United burdens trial.” Gonzales v. O Centro holds that the First pro- Espirita Amendment Vegetal, Uniao do Beneficente any governmental 418, 429, scribes ban on 126 S.Ct. political speech. (2006). Minnesota Citizens alter- L.Ed.2d 1017 Additionally, a "major purpose" corporations question,” If the of the require then Minnesota law would were to "influence the corporations register nomination or election as action 10A.01, promote of a candidate or to defeat a or ballot committees. Minn.Stat. subdiv. 27.

3H materially imposes are indistin- ability Minnesota regarding court’s determination regulations prevail guishable will often the PAC moving party of a matter, in especially found to be unconstitution- Supreme Court determinative party where a cases First Amendment in Citizens United. ally burdensome restricts enjoin a law seeking to takes issue specifically Minnesota Citizens Nixon, 545 F.3d Phelps-Roper v. speech. requirement periodic with (8th Cir.2008); Planned see also funds, ap- and the reports, segregated (“If Parenthood, party F.3d at 732 disagree, of a treasurer. We pointment a thresh- proof makes the burden with provisions on cor- finding that Minnesota’s likely prevail it is on showing that old porate independent expenditures are simi- merits, court should then the district to the disclosure purpose lar effect Dataphase fac- weigh the other proceed Supreme upheld laws that Court tors.”). the denial of a Finally, we review Citizens United. of dis- injunction for an abuse preliminary argu- To Minnesota Citizen’s address cretion, may occur when “the dis- which ments, the Supreme we first turn to clearly court rests its conclusion trict United. In Court’s decision erroneous le- findings factual erroneous con- Supreme Parenthood, Planned gal conclusions.” constitutionality of a federal sidered the quotation marks F.3d at 733 omitted). “corporations un- prohibited law that using general treasury their

ions from independent expenditures make A. funds to ‘electioneering speech for defined as argues that Citizens first speech expressly or for ad- communication’ impermissibly preserved ban defeat of a candi- vocating the election or (quoting at 886 U.S.C. date.” laws. Minne- amending its election when 441b). provisions of federal Related that Minnesota still Citizens asserts sota law, corporations and though, permitted making indepen- corporations from bans “sepa- and administer unions to establish expenditures because dent (known ... po- segregated fund[s] rate funds, contribute to only can PAC[s]) committee[s], or litical action This runs separate entities. which “moneys limited re- purposes,” these but “clear” hold- afoul of the Court’s ... segregated fund[s] ceived United, which, according to ing in Citizens employ- donations from stockholders Citizens, “corpo- mandates that or, in corporation[s] the case of ees of the own, allowed to make their rations must be unions, at members of the Id. union[s].” independent expenditures.” general-fund (internal (citation omitted) quota- 887-88 alternatively argues Minnesota Citizens omitted). The further tion marks regulation politi- Minnesota’s extensive constitutionality of a feder- considered the if a as a de facto ban even cal funds serves a federal disclosure al disclaimer law and theoretically speak corporation could law is most relevant law. disclosure support, fund. For through a part that: and mandated argues regulations Minnesota Citizens days within 30 of a electioneering Federal office and is made com- 3. Federal law defines an days general election.” primary or 60 any publicly available "broad- munication as cast, cable, at 887 or satellite communication omitted). quotation clearly candidate for refers to a identified any person spends speaking. who more than from Id. at 914. As the Court $10,000 electioneering on communica- explained: year tions within a calendar must file Section 441b is a ban disclosure statement with the [Federal speech notwithstanding the fact that a Election That Commission]. statement by corporation PAC created can still identify person making must speak. A separate PAC is a association expenditure, expendi- the amount of the from the corporation. So the PAC ex- ture, the election to which communi- § emption ban, expenditure 441b’s directed, cation was and the names of 441b(b)(2), § does not allow corporations certain contributors. to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow 424(f)). § at (citing Id. U.S.C. Final- allow a speak it —and ly, Supreme Court considered these option does not—the to form PACs does non-profit corpora- the context of a prob- alleviate the First Amendment tion that wished to a film critical release § lems with 441b. PACs are burden- Clinton, Hillary then-Senator who was a alternatives; they some expensive presi- candidate for the 2008 Democratic subject administer and reg- to extensive primary, dential and wished to do so with- example, every ulations. For PAC must out complying applicable with federal treasurer, appoint forward donations disclaimer or disclosure laws. at Id. promptly, keep treasurer detailed records of persons the identities of the case, In resolving the donations, making preserve receipts for Court struck down 441b’s restrictions on years, three organization and file an corporate independent expenditures but statement and report changes to this upheld the federal disclaimer and disclo- days. information within 10 laws, sure stating: “The may Government just And that is beginning. PACs regulate corporate political speech through must monthly file detailed reports with disclaimer and requirements, disclosure FEC, which are due at different may suppress but that speech alto- depending times on the type of election gether.” Id. at 886. More specifically, is about reports to occur: These the Court held that have a must contain regarding information First Amendment right to make indepen- hand; amount of cash on the total expenditures; dent any governmental ban receipts, amount of detailed 10 differ- independent expenditures categories; ent the identification of each trigger will the highest level of constitu- political committee and candidate’s au- scrutiny, tional namely “strict scrutiny”; thorized or making affiliated committee governmental “[n]o sufficient interest” contributions, any persons making justify exists to a ban under this constitu- loans, rebates, providing refunds, divi- tionally heightened scrutiny. level of dends, or interest or other offset proceeded 897-913. The Court then operating expenditures in aggregate strike down 441b as an impermissible $200; amount over the total amount of ban on independent expenditures by cor- disbursements, all by 12 porations, detailed differ- despite ability the corpora- of ent categories; the names of all tions to form author- PACs under 441b. Id. ized or This is because such affiliated committees to whom separate PACs are entities founding from their corporations aggregating over $200 administer, and made; burdensome to persons both of have been to whom loan effectively prevent which repayments made; or refunds have been contributions, general fund’s from oper- political all rate a assets of the total sum Thus, corpora- a corporate and assets. while outstanding debts ating expenses, to a fund political of tion can choose create and the settlement terms obligations, association, a any obligation. may separate constitute or debt the retirement not to corporation a need do so order (citations omitted) (internal quo- at 897 Id. such, As we conclude Minnesota speak. omitted). Supreme The tations likely that Minneso- Citizens is show expressly prior its also overruled Court per corporate a se ta retained ban contrary, namely portions the decisions expenditures. independent Michigan Com- Chamber of Austin 1391, merce, 110 S.Ct. Likewise, Citizens is (1990), v. Fed- and McConnell L.Ed.2d 652 prevail theory that likely on its Commission, eral Election a ban on Minnesota retained functional (2003). 157 L.Ed.2d 491 124 S.Ct. corporate independent expenditures. contrast, the By upheld the Court at 913. Supreme Court held that PACs are “bur laws at and disclosure federal disclaimer (1) alternatives,” noting PACs: densome “exacting scrutiny” the stan- under issue appoint a forward do must treasurer and part such of review because while dard (2) treasurer; keep detailed nations may ability to burden the “requirements receipts peri records and for an extended they impose ceiling on cam- ... no speak, time, including the od of information on prevent activities and do not paign-related (3) donors; identity update file and (cita- speaking.” Id. at 914 anyone (4) statement; file organizational omitted) (internal quotation marks tion monthly reports, oper detailing the PACs omitted). assets, ating expenses, receipts, contribu case, tions, expenditures, amongst In this not believe oth we do debt United, at likely prevail things. 130 S.Ct. Minnesota Citizens er Court, however, Supreme based specific issue whether 897. The holding retained on the cumulative effects of impermissibly a ban on expenditures. regulations Minne federal and not the exis Under law, any specific id. corporation regulation. a does not need to tence of sota (“PACs alternatives; fund are separate a association from a burdensome corporation A sub they expensive can retain administer and it establishes. operations ject regulations.” (emphasis politi full control over the of a to extensive added)). creates, Indeed, up including by appointing Supreme fund it Court cal re employee officer as the held a federal disclaimer law by directing polit detailed disclosures and extensive quired fund’s treasurer recordkeeping. Id. at The federal ical fund to return excess contribu Additionally, required anyone unlike law at and dissolve. disclosure issue tions considered, $10,000 than spent more on election the PACs who eering can an unlimited communications within a calendar contribute (1) fund, report indicating: to its to file a directly year amount entity making identity fund can these contribu of the individual or use (2) “custodian of the expenditures. expenditure; make tions to making accounts of (citing person books and 887-88 441b(b)(2)). disbursement”; Moreover, amount of corpo “[t]he U.S.C. dur disbursement more than bookkeeping $200 can use device each ration by the statement sepa- ing period an internal covered simple spreadsheet as funds, person political and the identification of the as funds do not have to file (4) made”; whom the disbursement was reports frequently as as federal PACs and electioneering elections to which the “[t]he do not have to provide the same level of (if pertain Indeed, communications and the names in political detail.4 a fund’s sim- known) of the candidates identified or to form, plest where a is control- (5) identified”; the names and ad- ling activities, using employ- fund’s $1,000 anyone dress of who treasurer, contributed or ee using an internal more to person entity paid or for device, bookkeeping Minnesota’s law im- electioneering communication. poses materially greater no than burden 434(f). Consequently, U.S.C. we must the federal disclosure law upheld Citi- evaluate provisions Minnesota’s on inde- zens United. The treasurer in such cases pendent expenditures as a whole. acts as little more than the custodian of records, and the information to be Collectively, provisions Minnesota’s on disclosed corporation’s about the contribu- corporate independent expenditures are expenditures tions and is similar to the significantly less burdensome than the fed- requirements upheld disclosure in Citizens regulations eral on PACs. As stated earli- 434(f)(2). United. See U.S.C. Conse- er, a corporation appoint can an employee quently, provisions while Minnesota’s on or officer as political treasurer of its fund corporate independent expenditures do can simple, use bookkeeping internal PACs, bear some resemblance to federal separate devices to and track contributions provisions place Minnesota a much expenditures, which significantly limits more limited burden corporations. Ac- complying cost of with Minnesota’s cordingly, Minnesota unlikely Citizens is Moreover, regulations. a corporation can prevail on the issue of whether Minnesota easily fund, create and political dissolve a functionally retained a ban on thereby allowing a corporation to limit its independent expenditures. exposure to Minnesota’s regulations only period to the time actively it is engaging in B. political speech. 10A.14, §§ Minn.Stat. Additionally, 10A.24. places argues Citizens further fewer reporting requirements political that Minnesota’s governing corporate candidate, 4. Minnesota Citizens single and the dissent mittee aggregate or in an amount periodic out reporting require- $100 in excess of year within a calendar proof ment impermissible as definitive of an shall file with the Commission [statements] corporate independent burden on expendi- reports by on the dates on political which They argue tures. requiring corpora- filed’’); committees are Human Wash. Life of periodic reports tions to file if the cor- —even Brumsickle, Inc. v. 1012-14 porations did not make (9th Cir.2010) (upholding a state law man- during reporting period a PAC- —creates Indeed, dating periodic reporting). we must like effectively burden that bans impact reporting consider require- of a speech, disagree. or at least chills it. We In necessary step ment as a discerning Valeo, Buckley ap- Here, validity. where the evidence before proved periodic reporting requirement the district court indicates that candidates, entities other than PACs or nec- easily can file short statements to create and essarily holding requirements that such funds, dissolve we can discern no per 80-81, 160, se invalid. 424 infirmity. constitutional The burden on cor- (uphold- L.Ed.2d 659 porations appears light, reporting and the ing re- (oth- provides: “Every person law that quirement candidate) greatly government’s er facilitates the than a committee or expenditures, who makes monitoring corpo- informational interest other than contribution independent expenditures. to a com- rate of can expenditures disclosure prompt are not suffi- expenditures independent with shareholders and citizens provide level given heightened ciently tailored corpora- needed to hold the information Continuing scrutiny. constitutional of accountable tions and elected officials Minnesota previous argument, its from positions supporters. their and “which scrutiny, that asserts strict Citizens can whether Shareholders determine that the prove the Government to requires political speech ad- corporation’s their interest compelling a furthers restriction in mak- corporation’s interest vances that narrowly to achieve tailored and is and can see whether ing profits, citizens interest,” apply Minnesota should because in of so- pocket officials are elected political expenditures. banned moneyed called interests. (internal marks quotation at 898 130 S.Ct. (internal omit- quotation at marks omitted). Minnesota maintains Citizens 66-68, ted); Buckley, 424 at see also U.S. any possess not government that the does (“The governmental interests 96 S.Ct. 612 expen- in banning interest such compelling vindicated disclosure sought to be by the Su- the reasons stated ditures for categories. ... fall requirements into three in Minne- Citizens United. preme Court First, provides the electorate disclosure if even argues also that sota Citizens as to cam- with information where govern- possessed significant Minnesota money comes from and how it is paign interest, requirements, mental candidate in to aid the spent by the order including requirements appointing its evaluating those who seek federal voters are filing periodic reports, and treasurer Second, requirements office.... disclosure Alternatively, narrowly tailored. corruption ap- deter actual and avoid Minneso- argues Citizens that corruption by exposing large pearance fail regulations under standard ta’s light and to the review, that, claiming part if a Third, signif- not least publicity.... separate from fund is not association icant, recordkeeping, reporting, and disclo- founding corporation, government then the requirements are an essential means sure to incur justify forcing corporations cannot necessary to detect gathering the data utilizing associated with the cost limitations of the contribution violations disagree. fund.5 We quotation described above.” omitted)). ex- Consequently, under corpo outright Unlike bans on only must acting scrutiny, “ expenditures, which independent rate show a ‘substantial relation’ between subjected great suspicion viewed with requirement” govern- disclosure scrutiny, generally courts view to strict in- important providing ment’s interest corporate disclosure laws as beneficial formation electorate.

subject regulations less-rigor such United, Buckley, at (quoting 130 S.Ct. exacting-scrutiny 612). ous standard. with- 424 U.S. at “To at scrutiny, 130 S.Ct. 914. This is because strength stand this materially prevent do interest the ser- governmental disclosure laws must reflect the actual on First speaking iousness of burden anyone and because: argument because we have al 5. Minnesota Citizens further contends address this organizations "major purpose” only ready whose did not im concluded subject elect to nominate or candidates can be regulations PAC cor pose "burdensome” burdens',” Buckley, "PAC-style citing porations making expenditures. We see no need to 316 rights.” provisions

Amendment John Doe No. 1 with the of the disclosure law —Reed, U.S.-, 2811, 2814, by judicial S.Ct. and can easily pro- reached (internal omitted)). quotation L.Ed.2d 493 cess” marks quotation omitted). we Accordingly, deny while do not there are administrative costs to Minnesota’s As we concluded the preceding corporate independent disclosure law on section, did not corporate Minnesota ban that, expenditures, conclude we based Instead, independent expenditures. based upon court, the record the district before upon findings, strongly the lower court’s as prevail Minnesota Citizens is unlike to on record, supported by we find that its claim improper tailoring. a statutory Minnesota created scheme de signed corporations require to disclose certain when making indepen information C. dent expenditures. provisions Since the also challenges Minnesota Citizens laws,

issue are apply disclosure we exact Minnesota’s to retain decision its ban on ing scrutiny, just as the Supreme Court direct corporate contributions to candi- did Citizens review Minne United entities, dates politi- and affiliated such as provisions corporate sota’s on cal parties. Minnesota argues expenditures to ensure that regula corporate ban on direct contribu- substantially tions are related to Minneso tions pursu- violates the First Amendment important ta’s in providing interest infor ant Court’s holding in mation. 130 at 915-16. upon Based government may Citizens United that the court, the record the district before Minne suppress speech by corpora- sota appears adequately to have tailored tions. Minnesota Citizens further main- because, its laws we found in previ as tains that section, holding ous the Court’s provisions reason- collec ing in tively implicitly impose materially greater no Citizens United overruled burden corporations prior contrary than the decision to the corpo- disclosure laws at issue in Citizens United. Even rate Minneso Federal Election specific treasurer, Beaumont, ta’s for a requirements 146, Commission v. periodic reporting, separate (2003). fund are 156 L.Ed.2d 179 sufficiently because, within tailored Alternatively, Minnesota Citizens context of the entire Minnesota regulatory argues only permitted that Beaumont scheme, each requirement greatly en corporate to restrict contribu hances the transparency corporate ex possessed tions when corporations another penditures imposing only while reasonable Beaumont, means speaking, which in Buckley, burdens. U.S. at through establishing was PACs. Since periodic S.Ct. 612 (holding that reporting that such United held PACs do statute that applied entities other than permit speak, Minneso committees candidates because ta Citizens asserts that even if requirement “a Beaumont bore sufficient relation interest”);remains ship governmental controlling, to a Minnesota’s ban on substantial direct Right impermis 'l contributions is Political Action Nat Life Connor, (8th Comm. v. sible because corporations have no other Cir.2003) means of (holding require speaking, treasurer can preserved ment integrity only “the conduit the elec establish PAC-like funds. Fi process” through toral providing nally, “an argues indi Minnesota Citizens that even vidual who if compliance is accountable possesses interest in re- contributions, contributions, on individual restrictions stricting direct recognized recent have that re tailor its cases adequately failed scrutiny stricting by organiza contributions various given that strict prohibition, hedges use as conduits against tions their to this ban apply would of contribution lim disagree. for circumvention valid We speech.6 (alterations omitted) quota its.” part the latter of the 19th “At least since omitted)). the tion While federal the century, laws of some States and of the at cre corporations issue allowed to imposed corporate a ban on States United ate PACs under 441b for activi Citi contributions to candidates.” direct ty, Supreme the Court’s decision did not United, In Buckley, at 900. zens 130 S.Ct. ability corporations to hinge on the of the Supreme “explained that the Court 156-61, id. at speak through PACs.7 See dis quid pro quo corruption for potential 2200; Party 123 S.Ct. Green Conn. of contributions to candi tinguished direct (2d 189, 204-05 Garfield, 616 F.3d Cir. and independent expenditures” from dates 2010) (concluding banning that “laws con governmental justified greater restrictions may aby group” tributions discrete be Later, in Id. at 901-02. on contributions. constitutional); Right Iowa To Life Beaumont, Supreme that the Court held Comm., Smithson, F.Supp.2d Inc. v. 750 non prohibit could even the 2010) (S.D.Iowa (noting 1045 n. 20 corporations making from advocacy profit, “the in did that result Beaumont not de only of contributions not because direct availability option” of a PAC pend the corruption danger quid pro quo of the rather the but “on differences between stemming potential corpo the to turn and contribu into “war chests” earnings rate tions”). Instead, the the Court considered protect need to also because the but ability of to establish PACs corporations corporations in and minority shareholders upholding an additional factor in favor of hedge against corporations the need to “closely at the federal laws issue under circumventing being as conduits for used scrutiny ap drawn” standard Court constitutional, contri otherwise individual Beaumont, 162-63, 539 at 123 plied. 154-55, at bution limits. See 539 U.S. 2200. S.Ct. “Quite (stating, in aside part: Ct.S. in Supreme and inter Court’s decision corruption from war-chest While owners, however, and implicates holding Citizens United ests contributors Beaumont, rationale in we do not believe regulating corporate another reason Beaumont. As emerged involvement has with the Court overruled electoral Supreme argues Citizens Minne- and because the 6. Minnesota also that issue, corporate sota’s ban on direct in did not consider this United Citizens Equal thus, violates the Protection Clause portion this did not overrule legitimate no Fourteenth Amendment because 913; at Austin. See impos- governmental justify interest exists Ritter, P.3d but see Dallman v. 634- stringent corpora- ing regulations on more (Colo.2010). and other similar associa- tions than unions tions, Supreme especially since the Court’s Indeed, ban on contri- “[a] direct contrary decision to the in Austin was over- corpo- individual members of butions leaves disagree We be- ruled United. contributions, own rations free to make their Supreme cause the Court Austin held deprives public little or material no existed between the "crucial differences” Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 162 n. information.” corporation and functioning of structure and 8, 123 S.Ct. 2200. justified un- unions that differential treatment laws, 665-68, 494 U.S. at der election matter, Court Citi- Supreme initial could protected by less-restrictive zens United expressly declined recon- deciding means. 908-12. In jurisprudence sider its on direct case, Court in Citizens Unit- contributions, stating part: “Citizens ed never government’s strong doubted United has made direct contributions quo in preventing quid pro corrup- interest candidates, suggested has materially questioned ability tion or should the Court reconsider whether serve for cir- as conduits subjected limits should be contribution cumventing valid contributions limits. rigorous scrutiny.” First Amendment 130 id. Thus, Beaumont remains controlling. S.Ct. at the Additionally, Supreme 909. (conclud- Party, See Green 616 F.3d at 199 Citizens United did in Court’s rationale law”). that Beaumont is ing “good fully undercut the in reasoning Court’s Moreover, even that assuming the Su United, Beaumont. Citizens Prior to in implicitly preme portions Court overruled Austin, Supreme upheld the Court fed- United, of in Beaumont Citizens we must eral on corporate independent restriction follow Beaumont until the still Supreme expenditures because the Court found that Agostini Court contrary. holds government possessed the a compelling Felton, 203, 237, 117 governmental interest in preventing “the (1997) (“We do L.Ed.2d not ac distorting corrosive and effects immense hold, knowledge, and we do not that other aggregations of wealth that accumulat- courts should conclude our more recent help ed with the of the corporate form and have, by implication, cases overruled an little or have no correlation to the earlier precedent. We reaffirm that if public’s for support corporation’s polit- the Austin, precedent ical this applica ideas.” Court has direct case, In yet S.Ct. 1391. tion in a appears the Su- rest on preme rejected rejected Court this reasons in anti-distortion some other line of deci overruled Austin sions, rationale and in part be- of Appeals Court should follow cause the lacks controls, sufficient directly case which leaving to interest in “equalizing ability the relative this prerogative Court the overruling its of individuals and groups to influence (internal own decisions.” quotation marks outcome of elections.” 130 S.Ct. at 904 omitted)). and alteration (internal omitted). quotation marks Beau Having concluded Citizens United went Supreme in mont controlling precedent, remains we further, however, rejected and the federal find that Minnesota unlikely Citizens is corporate ban on independent expendi- prevail challenge on its to Minnesota’s ban tures independent expenditures because do on direct materially corporate contributions. As government’s involve the Beaumont, Court held in preventing interest in quid pro quo re corrup- tion, striction on pass direct contributions will are not candidates, with coordinated constitutional muster if “closely because the limit is any governmental in interest drawn protecting sufficiently to match a important Beaumont, dissenting shareholders in interest.”8 539 U.S. at that, additionally argues speech regulation. for further For regardless holding, Right support, Beaumont's strict Minnesota Citizens cites Iowa scru- Comm., tiny Williams, apply should because Inc. v. ban on 187 F.3d 963 Minnesota's Life (8th because, direct Cir.1999). is a disagree content- We based restriction, based singles upon court, as Minnesota out the record before the district remaining Dataphase sary to consider quotation omitted). did if law and find that the district court true even factors This holds refusing all contribu- in to en- review not abuse discretion under bans scrutiny turns “degree laws. join because the election tions activity regulated,” the nature of In- regulation. Id. extent of the not the III. be- deed, is not that difference “[i]t reasons, we foregoing For the affirm ignored; a ban a limit is tween court’s denial of Minnesota Citi- district it is when that the time consider just injunction. request zens’s selected, not level scrutiny at the applying selecting of review itself.” the standard RILEY, Judge, concurring part Chief case, possesses In this dissenting in part. interest important governmental same quid avoiding pro quo corruption I indepen- Because believe Minnesota’s on direct of its other limits circumvention impermissibly bur- expenditure dent law federal government as the contributions political speech, respectfully I dissent dens Additionally, based Beaumont. did majority opinion. from Part II.B. of the court, the record before district upon Part II.B. tai- properly to have appears relatively complex because, Under Minnesota’s pursuant to its restriction lored corporations10 wishing Beaumont, regulations, web of generally can ban independent expenditure to make an must Ac- contributions.9 corporate all direct comply record-keeping with burdensome cordingly, Minnesota Citizens cannot since reporting requirements associated likely prevail to on the that is show maintaining indepen- creating political or issue with direct-contribution issue, (describing we unneces- fund. See ante at 308-09 rele- dent-expenditure find it ability corporate of candidates to mount effective cam- on direct contribu- Minnesota’s ban Sorrell, the ex- purpose paigns. serves a unrelated to See Randall v. tions contributions, namely 248-63, pressive content of L.Ed.2d corruption prevention and the circum- of (striking as down a contribution limit laws. Fraternal vention of other election See prevented limits candi- too low because the Police, Stenehjem, Lodge State Order N.D. "amassing necessary the resources dates from of Cir.2005) ("A (8th regula- advocacy” quotation for effective purposes tion that serves unrelated omitted)). marks neutral, even expression of is deemed content speakers has an effect on some if it incidental at issue are much broader 10. The restrictions (internal quota- messages not others.” or but just regulating corporations and indeed than omitted)). Minnesota Citizens's tion only nearly does affect all associations. Not because, misplaced on reliance Williams is Campaign Act ex- Minnesota's Fair Practices Williams, challenged law that the we found liability companies the pressly treat limited speech distinguished the basis disfavored corporations, see same Minn.Stat. content, here. 187 F.3d at 967- of its unlike 211B.15, only permits requirement § liberty Additionally, we are not at to 68. (or committees) political political funds disregard decision to Court's is even make scrutiny, scrutiny,” not apply "close strict broader, every reaching almost "association.” on direct contributions. bans 10A.12, la. Even the smallest See subdiv. 10A.01, partnership regulated. is See sub- meaningfully does not 9. Minnesota Citizens (" group of two 'Association' means div. court argue, and before the district the record show, persons, who are not all members or more ban on direct does not that Minnesota's concert.”) family, acting in interfering immediate with the law). must portions challenged again, Cor- initiate the vant process again. bureaucratic responsible fail- porations and individuals comply regulatory ing to with Minnesota’s United, In the Supreme subject to civil scheme are substantial instructed, may sup- “the Government penalties, from fines ranging criminal to press speech on the basis years. imprisonment up to five speaker’s corporate identity. No sufficient 10A.12, 6; §§ lb Minn.Stat. subdivs. governmental justifies interest limits 2; 10A.121, 10A.13, 1; subdiv. subdiv. ... political speech corporations.” 10A.14, 4; 10A.15, 4; subdiv. subdiv. 130 S.Ct. at 913. Be- 10A.16; 10A.20, 10A.17, 5; subdiv. subdiv. political “[s]peech cause is an essential 12; 211B.15, provisions subdivs. 6-7. The democracy,” mechanism “the means to manifestly discourage corporations, partic- hold people,” officials accountable “a resources, corporations with ularly limited precondition self-govern- enlightened protected engaging it,” a necessary protect ment and means to speech, participation and hinder their in “political speech prevail against must debate and their access to the suppress it, by design would whether citizenry government. and the See Citi- Therefore, inadvertence.” Id. — Comm’n, United v. zens Fed. Election that burden political speech “[l]aws -, 876, 907-08, 175 ‘subject scrutiny,’ strict requires which (2010). 753 L.Ed.2d the Government to restric- prove the tion a compelling ‘furthers and is interest Perhaps the ongoing most onerous is narrowly tailored to achieve that inter- initiated, reporting requirement. Once the ” est.’ (quoting Fed. Election Comm’n requirement potentially perpetual11 is re- Inc., Right 449, v. Life, Wis. 551 U.S. gardless of whether the corporation ever (2007) 464, 2652, 168 L.Ed.2d 329 again independent expenditure. makes an C.J.)). Roberts, (plurality opinion of 10A.20, § 2 7 See subdivs. and (requiring political file reports during funds to five a Independent expenditures indisput- are general year report election ably political speech. one dur- Buckley Va- leo, ing non-general 1, year, 39, 612, a election even if 424 the U.S. 96 46 S.Ct. (1976) political during fund has been indepen- inactive that L.Ed.2d 659 (explaining period). majority The draws comfort from dent expenditures expression constitute the fact corporations Minnesota allows “at of process the core our electoral freedoms.”) mitigate by “easily this burden of creating] the First Amendment dissolving] political Rhodes, a fund.” (quoting 23, Ante at Williams v. (inter- 5, 313. The with trouble this solution is the 24 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d corporation’s right speak quotation omitted)); constitutional nal Iowa through independent Comm., Williams, Right dis- Inc. v. Life (8th Cir.1999) with political solves the To speak (recogniz- fund. notice, Campaign provides 11. Minnesota's corporation presum- Finance and Public such a (Board) notice, may, ably reports Disclosure Board with must continue to file on its inac- force of an dissolution "inactive” tive fund. The statute is unclear as years elapsed triggers fund if "two have since process the end to what mechanism reporting period during politi- a dissolving Regard- which the inactive funds. less, expenditure fund corporation wishing cal ... made an or disburse- a to retain its First requiring right ment disclosure independent [the under Cam- Amendment to make ex- paign penditures Finance reporting and Public Disclosure Act].” must continue an on- 10A.242, § going subdivs. 1-2. Until the Board basis. 441d(d)(2), a citizen independent required could “through ing communication responsible party public identify the First as ‘core’ Amendment expenditures, scheme, and discover relevant information. records a activity”). Under Minnesota’s United, 130 See Citizens S.Ct. wheth- to decide compelled is requirement reporting This event-driven right is exercising constitutional er as report as soon was filed. See ended entering expense time and worth the 434(f). requiring The effect morass of long-term perpetual or even law— only one-time disclosure when substan- tape. red Some regulatory money spent logically tial amount of was simply not the exercise is — will decide government’s pur- matched disclosure trouble. Because the worth the burdens contrast, pose. In the effect of Minneso- with associated reporting requirement, ta’s which ongoing corporate political law expenditure chill expendi- upon aggregate is initiated a $100 challenged subject speech, I would ture, and is untethered from continued It scrutiny analysis. provisions to strict speech, not match disclosure in- does prove would be able unlikely Minnesota requirements, terest. Other such re- law, aspects particularly ongo- treasurer, funds, segregated quiring a requirements, ing are least reporting record-keeping, only tangentially also are accomplishing means com- restrictive related to disclosure. pelling interest. majority explains Buckley that “[i]n challenged Despite recognizing law approved v. Valeo the corporate political speech, see burdens for periodic reporting requirement entities majority forgoes strict ante at candidates, necessarily other than PACs or analysis, opting instead “ex- scrutiny holding requirements per that such acting scrutiny” majority clas- because 1, 80-81, 160, se invalid. provisions as disclosure “de- sifies (1976).” 612, 314, at L.Ed.2d Ante 46 659 require corporations to disclose signed to (discussing Buckley’s analysis n. 4 of 2 indepen- making information when certain 434(e) (1970 ed., IV)), § Supp. U.S.C. at expenditures,” ante 316. Accord- dent (cur- 305, § 3 Pub.L. No. 92-225 86 Stat. laws ing majority, Minnesota’s “are 434(c)). § at 2 But rent version the U.S.C. purpose and effect to the disclo- similar Buckley addressing was not Court upheld sure that the laws requirements. nature In- periodic I Ante in Citizens United.” at 311. dis- stead, construing the Court the mean- was this agree with classification because cer- in the ing “expenditure” of the word stat- imposes requirements tain “precisely ute to further[ed]” ensure very little nothing have or goal promote “to full government’s disclo- do with disclosure. campaign-oriented spending,” sure challenged in The federal law 78, 612, and at 96 S.Ct. did violate (analyzing 2 S.Ct. at 913-16 130 process rights constitutional due because 434(f)(1)), 441d(d)(2), required 76, §§ concerns, U.S.C. see Id. at 96 vagueness filing report only when cor- Regardless, a disclosure S.Ct. 612. law issue (or else) anyone spent more than poration only periodic reporting, Buckley required $10,000 electioneering require filing communications most state- which at would commercial) during (e.g., through television end of the calendar ments 434(f). Then, qualifying independent when in which a year. year See calendar “_is 434(e). respon- expenditure made. a communication was See disclosed advertising,” here is not that Minnesota’s the content of this concern sible for 322 (1976) 2673,

reporting requirement periodic; is the con- 49 547 (noting L.Ed.2d “[sjtate requirement is the reporting ongo- may cern is not choose means that unnec- ing essarily constitutionally unless the fund is terminated protected restrict liberty” forced to Periodic reporting regulatory dissolve. nor choose scheme requirements per invalid; broadly speech are not se if stifling but has state subject scrutiny, to strict at least way satisfying when available a “less drastic interests”) requirements the duration of legitimate Kusper those is on- (quoting Pontikes, 51, 59, 303, going indefinite. v. 414 U.S. (1973) (internal 38 L.Ed.2d quotation 260 A state should not be able to sidestep omitted)). marks Provisions “no more scrutiny analysis by simply labeling strict tenuously than related to the substantial regulations as a burdensome “disclosure interests serves ... disclosure fail exact- law,” effect, if when the not the design, is ing scrutiny.” Buckley v. Am. Constitu- discourage speech. gen (ACLF), 182, tional Law Found. 525 U.S. erally Fed. Election Comm’n Mass. Cit 204, 636, (1999) 142 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 599 Inc., 238, Life, izens omitted). 616, 93 L.Ed.2d (engaging in strict scrutiny reviewing a when federal Each of provisions should campaign though law even first be separately reviewed to determine claimed the implicated law regulation disclosure whether each substantially interest); Nat'l Right necessary Political Ac related and to accomplish the Life Connor, Comm. v. ACLF, tion interests, 694- identified disclosure see (8th Cir.2003) (con- & n. 11 201-203, (discussing strict 525 U.S. at 119 S.Ct. 636 scrutiny for a law implicating cluding aspects state’s certain of Colorado’s law disclosure interest because “state governing requirements election disclosure for bal- that severely the right restrict proponents exacting lot-initiative failed association attempting regulate scrutiny in- important because state’s internal affairs of political organizations adequately terests were met through other narrowly must be law), drawn to serve a aspects com valid and it is Minneso- interest”). pelling state Allowing such a ta’s burden to establish the rela- required, Elrod, characterization process of our review tionship, see U.S. at (“The transforming risks First juris Amendment S.Ct. 2673 interest advanced must prudence into a legislative labeling paramount, exer one of vital importance, and cise. the burden is on the to show interest.”). the existence of such an For Assuming arguendo exacting scrutiny is above, the reasons discussed it is doubtful appropriate, the still law fails because justify Minnesota can ongoing the report- unable to show a substantial ing requirement. relation between ongoing its reporting re quirement any governmen and important scrutiny, Under either strict or exacting tal interest. Though rigorous less I than would likely hold Citizens is scrutiny, exacting strict scrutiny prevail is more merits of its challenge than rubber stamp. Buckley, See 424 Minnesota’s corporate independent expen- 64, 66, at law, 96 S.Ct. 612 (describing diture and I would reverse the district exacting scrutiny a “strict requir as test” court’s preliminary injunction. denial of the ing Nixon, more than “a showing 685, mere of See Phelps-Roper some v. (8th interest”); Cir.2008) legitimate governmental 690 likely Elrod (reasoning that Burns, 347, 362-63, 427 U.S. 96 success in S.Ct. on the merits a First Amend-

323 compelling meet relevant state inter- irrepara- often challenge establishes ment est”); 164, in favor of harm, equities (Kennedy, of id. at 123 S.Ct. 2200 a balance ble public (“Were and inter- expression, J., freedom of concurring) presented we with a est). II.B. from Part respectfully I dissent in which the distinction between con- case opinion. majority’s expenditures under tributions campaign regula- scheme of finance Part II.C. whole review, join might I tion were under Jus- in majority’s judgment I with concur Austin, dissenting opinion.”); Thomas’ tice C., the district court’s affirming Part II. (incor- 665-66, 110 1391 494 U.S. S.Ct. enjoin ban on direct refusal to much of the now-over- porating Court’s to candidates analysis First its ruled Amendment into 211B.15, subdiv. See affiliated entities. analysis); also equal protection see Dall- 2. In Citizens (Colo. Ritter, 610, man v. 225 P.3d 634-35 Fed. Election explicitly not overrule did 2010) Beaumont, 146, allowing a state (holding corpo- 123 law 589 U.S. Comm’n v. (2003), candidates, 2200, 179 or the 156 L.Ed.2d rations to contribute to but S.Ct. holding in Austin protection unions equal forbidding doing Court’s labor Commerce, 494 U.S. v. Mich. Chamber Equal Protection same violated Clause 1391, 652, Amendment). 108 L.Ed.2d of the Fourteenth (1990), part by in Citizens Unit- overruled Second, the fact the district court’s con- ed, the Su- at 913. Because S.Ct. does rise to an abuse of clusion not discre- to wait has instructed courts preme Court tion does not mean Beaumont Austin decisions, see its own to overrule compel holding an ultimate favor Felton, 237-38, 203, Agostini v. Minnesota on this issue. Minnesota Citi- (1997), 138 L.Ed.2d may develop a factual record zens demon- did abuse discretion district court strating Minnesota’s ban on ex- unlikely determining Minnesota Citizens is “closely drawn” penditures is this claim. to win on the merits of “sufficiently important interest.” separately I to make two observa- write Beaumont, U.S. at 123 S.Ct. 2200 First, outright United’s tions. omitted). The district court (quotation rejection government’s anti-distor- even should also be mindful that under rationale, as id. at 130 S.Ct. at tion see Austin, scrutiny is appropriate strict when that “the well the Court’s admonition reviewing merits of Minnesota Citi- price exact as the of [state- State cannot equal challenge, it is protection zens’ corporate] advantages the forfei- conferred prove Minnesota’s burden differ- rights,” Id. at ture First Amendment ences between and unions ar- Austin, 680, 110 (quoting 494 U.S. at apply ticulated Austin under the facts (Scalia, J., dissenting) S.Ct. 1391 Austin, of this case. 494 U.S. at See omitted)), quotation marks casts severe 110 S.Ct. 1391. Austin, leaving doubt Beaumont respective precedential value cases’ Conclusion Beaumont, shaky ground. I deni- would reverse district court’s 164-65, J., (Thomas, dis- injunction, I preliminary of a because al all senting) the belief that (articulating likely pre- believe Minnesota Citizens subject to strict campaign finance on the merits of its claim Minne- scrutiny contribu- vail the Colorado narrowly corporate independent expenditure tion ban was “not tailored sota’s law violates Citizens’ First rights.

Amendment RAU,

Randy Philip Appellant, City

Michael David ROBERTS and Minneapolis, Appellees.

No. 10-1476. Appeals,

United States Court of

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 2010. May

Filed:

Case Details

Case Name: Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: May 16, 2011

Citation: 640 F.3d 304

Docket Number: 10-3126

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.