No. 24-53
Nathan Miller, et al. v. Republican Party of Minnesota, et al.
Tags: campaign-speech civil-rights compelling-state-interest constitutional-law content-based-restriction content-based-restrictions first-amendment free-speech political-speech
Latest Conference:
2024-10-11
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether state statutes broadly banning false campaign speech, such as Minnesota Statutes § 211B.02, are unconstitutional, if not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether state statutes broadly banning false campaign speech are unconstitutional content-based restrictions on political speech
Docket Entries
2024-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
2024-09-13
Reply of Nathan Miller, et al. submitted.
2024-09-13
Reply of petitioners Nathan Miller, et al. filed. (10/4/2024) (Distributed)
2024-08-30
Brief of Republican Party of Minnesota in opposition submitted.
2024-08-30
Brief of Attorney General Keith Ellison in opposition submitted.
2024-08-30
Brief of respondents Republican Party of Minnesota, et al. in opposition filed.
2024-08-30
Brief of Attorney General Keith Ellison in opposition filed.
2024-08-30
Brief of respondent Attorney General Keith Ellison in opposition filed.
2024-07-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 30, 2024, for all respondents.
2024-07-19
Motion of Attorney General Keith Ellison for an extension of time submitted.
2024-07-19
Motion of respondent Attorney General Keith Ellison to extend the time to file a response from August 16, 2024 to August 30, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-07-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 16, 2024)
Attorneys
Attorney General Keith Ellison
Nathan Miller, et al.
Erick G. Kaardal — Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson P.A., Petitioner
Republican Party of Minnesota
Zachary Michael Wallen — Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC, Respondent