Ramsey County Law Library Blog

Be aware that our annual Law Day CLE event is coming up, which you will want to attend.  The theme of this year’s ABA-inspired event is “The Fourteenth Amendment – Transforming American Democracy.”  Our event, held in partnership with the Ramsey County Bar Association, will be held at 3:00 PM on Thursday, May 4 in the Ramsey County Court House.  We are proud to have Minneapolis attorney Donald M. Lewis as our speaker for this event!  He will be sharing his knowledge and experience with us in his presentation “Equal Protection of the Laws: The Journey from Jim Crow to Gay Marriage.” His presentation will consider the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equality and a “top ten” review of such U.S. Supreme Court decisions.  It will also consider the shortcomings of those decisions in improving social, economic and political outcomes. Historic applications of the clause in Minnesota cases will also be noted.  This presentation is free to attend and open to the public.  (Read here for more details about attorney CLE fees for this program.)

For a little background, the Fourteenth Amendment contains the Citizenship Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, The Due Process Clause, the Enforcement Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.   One of the three Reconstruction Amendments, its first section was drafted by Representative John Bingham of Ohio.  After its passage through Congress, President Johnson made a speech stating that submission of this groundbreaking amendment to the states for ratification was “purely ministerial.”  He seemingly sought to reassure Americans and their state legislatures that they were under no pressure from him to act on the amendment.  Enough states did act however, and it was ratified on July 9, 1868.  Nearly 150 years later, the amendment has become one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Roe v. Wade (1973), Bush v. Gore (2000), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).   Check out this fascinating timeline from the ABA website detailing the events leading up to the ratification of Fourteenth Amendment and its subsequent “transformation on American democracy.”

Brand-new President Donald Trump recently announced his selection for the U.S. Supreme Court, making Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch is the legal news of the week.  There is no shortage of articles with their divergent analysis and predictions (filibuster?) of Judge Gorsuch as a potential Supreme Court justice.  But ultimately the most useful information on what kind of jurist the judge is can be found by reading his opinions. Thus, presented below is a Gorsuth sampler:

• Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius  – Most cited in the news, this is the case regarding the Obamacare mandate that employee insurance coverage provide contraceptives.  In his opinion stating that the contraceptive mandate, per for-profit closely held corporations, substantially burdened the exercise of religion, for purposes of RFRA, Gorsuch made reference to “drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg.”  (Case later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.)
• Hugo Rosario Gutierrez-Brisuela v. Loretta Lynch  – Alien petitioner  sought review of a BIA order upholding an immigration judge’s decision by an immigration judge that pretermitted his application for status adjustment of his status under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Writing for the majority, Gorsuch postulated that a previous case giving federal agencies authority to interpret ambiguous laws and regulations, should be reconsidered.  He wrote that the resulting practice of administrative deference is “more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.”
• A.M. v. Holmes  – A mother brought a § 1983 action on behalf of her child against school officials, alleging First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from student’s arrest and subsequent search at school. The district court entered orders granting officials’ motions for summary judgment and denying mother’s for same. On mother’s appeal, the Court upheld the search and arrest, and held that the mother could not prevail on her First Amendment retaliation claim.  Gorsuch wrote a dissent claiming that his colleagues had misapplied controlling case law against  the state statute addressing misconduct in public schools.
• American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport  – In a case involving the display of 12-foot-high metal crosses erected alongside Utah highways in memory of fallen highway troopers, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court ruling to find the display of the crosses unconstitutional. The appeals court held that the crosses could convey to a reasonable observer that the State endorsed/preferred a certain religion, and violated the Establishment Clause.  In his dissent, Gorsuch asserted that his colleagues had  misapplied the “reasonable observer” test.
• Direct Marketing Association Inc. v. Brohl  – The Court of Appeals decided that the Tax Injunction Act did (not) bar federal court jurisdiction over a suit brought by non-taxpayers to enjoin the enforcement of notice-and-reporting requirements of state tax law that neither impose nor require the collection of a tax.  Gorsuch wrote and interesting concurring opinion on the role and application of case precedent.

These opinions may not be short, nor will everyone agree with them. But there’s no denying Judge Gorsuch’s witty, sans-legalese writing style.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today on the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), overturning the previous U.S. District Court ruling that the program was unconstitutional.   The Court of Appeals held that the program was not only constitutional, but necessary to protect citizens from dangerous sexual predators who would otherwise go free.  (See complete opinion here.)  Twenty other states have lockup programs similar to Minnesota’s, making this a highly-watched case.   And with the Minnesota Legislature about to convene, its members are no doubt relieved that they have been spared from the politically poisonous task of reforming the sex offender program.

On a somewhat similar note, Ramsey County recently made news with the recent release of the WATCH study which compared Hennepin and Ramsey Districts’ handling of sex trafficking cases from 2012 through 2016.  WATCH also wanted to see the impact of the 2011 Safe Harbor law, which was passed  to ensure that sexually exploited youths are viewed as victims and not criminals.  The entire report is a must-read for anyone who wants to know about how a person gets charged under MN Stat §609.322 and how, but the big news was how differently the same statute is applied in the different jurisdictions.  The Hennepin approach relies on the statute language “promotes prostitution” whereas the Ramsey approach relies on the language which specifically makes sex trafficking a crime.  According to this Star Tribune article there are other factors are at work but that the average prison sentence in Ramsey County was 19 years, more than three times as long as the Hennepin County average.  Moreover, Hennepin County defendants were significantly more likely to obtain downward sentencing departures.  The report had other recommendations  for the legislature, courts, and prosecutors.

Here are pictures of some objects which could qualify as “dangerous weapons” under MN Stat. § 609.02 of the criminal code. They are (from top left) a flintlock pistol, a compound bow, an air pellet gun, and a liquid grenade (three of them in fact).  But (as sung on a popular children’s television show) one of these weapons just doesn’t belong here. Last week the Minnesota Supreme Court analyzed what kind of objects could actually be firearms, even though the objects might qualify “dangerous weapons.”  In State vs. Haywood, the Court specifically examined whether or not appellant’s BB gun qualified as a firearm under MN, because he had originally been convicted in Ramsey District Court under MN Stat § 609.165 for possessing a firearm which he was barred from doing due to his felon status. Now’s it’s time to play our game: Can you guess which dangerous weapon doesn’t belong here, now that the Court has finished its song? (Hint: It’s not the one that the Court gave special analysis to in Haywood.)

If you guessed that the  flintlock pistol is the only weapon here doesn’t belong, then you are right! In applying the reasoning of Haywood, the compound bow, the canister grenades, AND the BB gun might all be dangerous weapons, but they are not technically firearms. Why? First, the Court held that it was not necessary to look at past decisions of whether or not BB guns were classed as firearms. And since the Minnesota Legislature had never bothered to officially define a firearm, the Court concluded it was appropriate to apply the plain meaning in defining a firearm.  Sources including Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary (“weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder”’) and Black’s Law Dictionary (“weapon that expels a projectile …by the combustion of gunpowder or other explosive”) were consulted for their definitions.  The Court then concluded that appellant’s BB gun was NOT a firearm, since it did not operate by a gunpowder explosion.  Strictly speaking, the bow and grenades would not be either.  The flintlock pistol WOULD operate via projectile and gunpowder explosion, and also has MN Stat § 624.712 defining it specifically as an antique firearm.

Of course, future legislative action or court decisions might present us with a different game to play, with entirely different answers.