Jumbo bills barreling toward review by Minnesota Supreme Court after gun ruling appeal
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
A case combining a fight over a new gun restriction with a challenge to megabills in the Minnesota Legislature is rumbling toward a showdown in the state Supreme Court sooner or later.
It has a big bearing on a firearms modification restriction struck down this summer by a lower court and, more broadly, the practice of lumping many items into massive bills.
In pushing for a review, state attorneys are looking to leapfrog the Court of Appeals to have the Minnesota Supreme Court weigh in on whether legislation piled with many different topics can stand. A Ramsey County District Court judge ruled in August that such a bill signed into law in 2024 was unconstitutional since it violated Minnesota’s single-subject rule.
The ruling struck down the provision at issue but let the remainder of the 1,429-page bill stand.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
Before the case takes a step forward, here’s a look at what prompted the challenge and what could come next for jumbo omnibus bills at the Capitol.
Gun trigger ban triggers case
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus sued this year to roll back a new law that prohibits binary triggers. Those are tools that allow the firearm to fire at a faster clip — one on the pull of a trigger and one on the release.
But the argument the group made in court had to do with how the policy became law. In the final hours of the 2024 legislative session, DFL majorities in the House and Senate tacked on several provisions to a tax bill and passed it over vocal complaints of GOP members.
The gun rights group says that shouldn’t have been allowed and contended the bill violated Minnesota’s single subject rule. This August, Ramsey County District Court Judge Leonardo Castro ruled that the Legislature did violate the rule and put the gun restriction on hold.
State lawyers seek clarity
Lawyers representing the state argue the Legislature was within its rights to pass the policy. They’ve called on the Minnesota Supreme Court to issue a decisive ruling about whether the broader law can stand and if lawmakers should be able to move similarly vast legislation in the future.
In their petition to accelerate the case, the state lawyers wrote the case “raises critical constitutional and legal issues that only this court can resolve. And it raises them in an area that has long vexed the Legislature and the court: how should the single subject clause apply to omnibus bills?”
The mid-September filing goes on to say that modern legislation is different than the early days of statehood, “when legislators passed fewer and shorter laws with less public oversight, and those laws were difficult to access.”
Last week, an attorney for the Gun Owners Caucus agreed that the stakes are high because the 1,400 page bill “covers every subject under the sun.” The attorney, Nicholas Nelson, said in a filing with the Supreme Court that the case should go through normal channels and not get sped up.
But Nelson added, “One way or another, this litigation is likely to be a turning point in the court’s decades-long effort to get the Legislature to respect our constitution’s single-subject clause.”
What comes next for this law?
The case could go in many directions. The arguments could focus solely on the gun restriction and its enforcement, or it could delve deeply into the legislative process that led to it.
While state lawyers hope the Minnesota Supreme Court acts quickly, justices aren’t compelled to take the case. They could opt to let the Court of Appeals weigh in first.
Even if the Supreme Court does hear it now, the scope of a ruling by justices could be narrow or broad.
Other groups are watching
UnitedHealth Group — the nation’s biggest insurer based right here in Minnesota — filed a similar lawsuit challenging a measure that prohibits the state from signing contracts with for-profit HMOs. The company also says the law’s measures chills the use of independent contractors within the business.
The Minnesota Trucking Association said it also takes issue with a provision of the law that affects the industry. Other groups have challenged bits and pieces in federal lawsuits.
Attorneys for the state say this is why the Supreme Court needs to weigh in. There could be dozens — or even more — groups that lodge challenges.
They’re asking the court to make a blanket decision about whether this whole thing can be reopened and rolled back in many parts. Or they want the court to deem it too late, since much of it went into effect last year.
Will this end supersized omnibus bills in Minnesota?
It’s hard to say. The Supreme Court or Court of Appeals could provide some more guidance to the Legislature. Or, they could steer the way they have in the past and say they don’t want to overstep by telling another branch of government what to do.
There was a case back in 2000 when the Supreme Court put lawmakers on notice. The justice who wrote that opinion said “we are concerned about the lack of a single subject and the characteristics of logrolling.”
Lawmakers didn’t change course
The practice of loading up omnibus bills is entrenched in the Legislature. It might be tough for lawmakers to unlearn that behavior. But lawmakers may have to take a note from these rulings and rethink their actions moving forward if major parts of bills or entire bills fall to court challenges.
When could this all get sorted out?
It will likely be months.
A briefing schedule in the Court of Appeals set in September gives the sides a few months to get a slate of written arguments in.
The state Supreme Court hasn’t yet given word if it will step in now. If that happens, it can take months after that for briefs to be filed and oral arguments to be held. Then, justices are under no requirement to release their decision until it’s ready.
There’s a chance this is resolved around the time the Legislature is in for its 2026 session early next year.
