Federal Appeals Court Partly Blocks Minnesota Election Speech Law on First Amendment Grounds

A federal appeals court narrowed Minnesota’s preelection “false information” law, saying key parts likely violate the First Amendment.

Story Highlights

Eighth Circuit granted partial relief from Minnesota’s 60-day election speech ban as to the challengers’ speech.
Court viewed the statute as a content-based speech restriction, triggering strict scrutiny review.
State says the law targets knowing lies intended to stop people from voting and classifies violations as a gross misdemeanor.
Scholars note many similar state laws face constitutional problems when they police political speech.

What the Appeals Court Did and Why It Matters

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit partly blocked Minnesota’s law that restricts false claims about voter eligibility in the 60 days before an election. The panel treated the rule as a content-based limit on speech and applied strict scrutiny. The court granted the Minnesota Voters Alliance a preliminary injunction as to its speech while the case continues. The order keeps the state from enforcing the law against those plaintiffs for now.

Minnesota argues the law protects voters from lies meant to keep them from voting. State statute says no person may knowingly deceive another about election procedures or voter eligibility with the intent to prevent voting, and it makes a violation a gross misdemeanor. The Attorney General has also framed the 60-day rule as targeting statements the speaker knows are false and intends to use to block someone’s vote. The appeals ruling does not end the case; it sets rules while the lawsuit proceeds.

How the Law Works and Where It Collides with Free Speech

The challenged provision focuses on the preelection window when speech and turnout peak. It bars causing information to be transmitted that the speaker knows is materially false and intends to use to impede voting, and it cites examples like lies about eligibility limits. Because it singles out specific topics and messages, the panel saw it as content-based. Under strict scrutiny, the state must show the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. The court found the challengers showed likely success as to their own speech.

Legal research shows these types of laws vary widely and often overreach when they police political speech rather than fraud, threats, or official filings. Many have drafting problems, vague terms, or broad scopes that chill debate. Other scholarship tracks a national trend: several states try to curb falsehoods about voting logistics, but courts question broad bans that sweep in protected political claims, satire, or honest mistakes. Those tensions shape how judges weigh narrow anti-fraud aims against free speech limits.

What Both Sides Say About Protecting Voters and Speech

State officials argue they need tools to stop bad actors from spreading lies that can scare or confuse voters off the rolls. The statute’s intent and knowledge requirements aim to target only those who know a claim is false and want to block someone’s ballot. Supporters say that focus on deliberate deception, plus examples tied to time, place, manner, and eligibility, makes the law more precise than older campaign “truth” rules that courts have struck down.

[Eugene Volokh] Court Partly Blocks Minnesota Law Restricting False Statements About "Restrictions on Voter Eligibility" https://t.co/uZqORLQkTK

— Volokh Conspiracy (@VolokhC) August 20, 2026

The challengers say even a targeted criminal ban chills speech when the clock is ticking before Election Day. They argue political actors often debate eligibility rules, like how felony convictions affect voting. A threat of jail can silence advocacy, especially from critics of the system. The Eighth Circuit’s move signals that courts remain wary of government refereeing truth in politics, even when the goal is guarding the ballot box. Analysts warn many state approaches face similar constitutional risks.

Why This Fight Reflects a Larger National Pattern

Across the country, lawmakers seek to blunt election lies, while courts insist the First Amendment protects most political speech, including some falsehoods. Researchers have found at least a dozen states regulate statements about voting requirements, with mixed drafting quality and results in court. Minnesota has been a frequent test bed for these clashes. This case continues that trend, forcing judges to weigh voter protection against the danger of punishing speech in the campaign season’s heat.

What to Watch Next

The district court will now apply the appeals court’s guidance and decide the merits. The state may revise training and guidance to focus enforcement on clear, targeted harms like forgery, intimidation, or fraudulent filings. Lawmakers in other states will study this ruling as they write or amend election speech laws. Voters should expect strong debates about eligibility rules and procedures to continue, but with courts pressing governments to use narrower tools and clearer language.